diagnose_database

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose scope by enumerating the five health areas checked. However, it says nothing about whether the check is read-only, whether it is heavy/slow (implied by 'composite'), or what it returns, so key behavioral traits remain undisclosed.

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?

It is a single front-loaded line with no wasted words, which is good, but the noun-fragment style leaves it under-specified rather than genuinely concise for a tool with parameters and no output schema.

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?

For a zero-required-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description covers the broad 'what' but omits the parameters, the return shape, and any usage decision criteria. It is adequate as a label but incomplete as agent guidance.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions include_queries or include_connections. The boolean names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning about what including them changes or when each is useful.

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 names a specific diagnostic operation ('Composite database health check') and enumerates the areas covered (cache, connections, vacuum, indexes, sequences), which clearly separates it from read-oriented siblings like describe_table or explain_query. It lacks a true verb and never explicitly contrasts itself with get_connections or list_indexes, which overlap its scope.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all. Because it is a 'composite' tool that overlaps several siblings (get_connections, list_indexes, get_slow_queries), an agent has no basis for choosing it over those narrower tools or understanding its cost relative to them.

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