get_deadlock_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the data source (system_health session) and output parsing, but does not disclose potential limitations such as session unavailability or permission requirements. Given the annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the main action ('Get recent deadlock history'). Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler. This is an example of a well-structured, concise tool description.

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 tool's simplicity, the existing output schema, and the strong annotation hints, the description provides enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly. It clearly identifies the data source and the information returned, making it complete for its purpose.

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% for both parameters (max_events and database_name), so the schema already explains their meaning. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what is already present, and the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states the tool retrieves deadlock history from system_health extended events and parses XML to show victim, participants, resources, and SQL text. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from other diagnostic siblings like get_wait_stats or get_active_sessions.

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 use when investigating deadlocks and provides clear context about the source and output. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the tool is unique enough among siblings that the context is sufficient without them.

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