get_db_health_running

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to explain what specific health metrics are returned (e.g., connections, uptime, performance metrics), whether the check is read-only, or if it impacts database performance. The term 'running' in the tool name suggests process status monitoring, but the description only mentions general health.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise with a single bilingual phrase. While not wasteful, the brevity is insufficient given the lack of annotations and output schema. The structure is simple but front-loads the core concept effectively.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameters, the description should explain return values and specific health aspects checked. It fails to clarify what distinguishes this from 'get_db_health_index_usage' or what 'running' implies in the tool name. For a health monitoring tool, this leaves critical gaps in understanding.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema contains zero parameters, which per evaluation rules establishes a baseline score of 4. There are no parameters requiring semantic clarification beyond the schema definition.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose as retrieving/analyzing MySQL health status using specific verbs (获取/Analyze) and resource (MySQL health status). However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'get_db_health_index_usage', which also deals with health but focuses specifically on indexes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_db_health_index_usage' or other database monitoring tools. It does not mention prerequisites, execution context, or conditions that would trigger its use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.