get_connection_diagnostics

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it specifies a 'bounded' input-buffer (limit), scopes to 'current database sessions,' and notes the optional nature of sensitive input-buffer data. This goes beyond basic annotations without contradicting them.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose ('Get connection diagnostics') and then lists the key deliverable components in a compact list. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool is a read-only diagnostic with no required parameters, and the description covers the main output areas. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed here. However, the description does not mention the default limit or the database_name default, which are minor context omissions that do not prevent effective use.

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 100%, with each parameter already having a detailed description (e.g., 'Include sys.dm_exec_input_buffer details...'). The tool description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond that, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. It does not compensate for any schema gaps because there are none.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('connection diagnostics'), then enumerates specific output components: connection counts by client IP, session summary, and optional bounded input-buffer text. This level of detail distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_active_sessions or get_connection_pool_stats, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies a use case by detailing what diagnostics are returned (connection counts, session summary, input-buffer text), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or mention exclusions/alternatives. The context is enough to infer usage, but explicit guidance is absent.

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