get_object_index_diagnostics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, which lowers the bar. The description adds valuable context about the tool's scope by detailing what diagnostics are included, going beyond a simple 'get diagnostics' statement. It does not contradict annotations, and while it omits performance or permission details, the read-only nature is well covered.

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, efficiently listing the main diagnostic categories with a colon list. It front-loads the core purpose and avoids superfluous wording, though the list is dense. It earns a high score for being concise without losing substance.

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?

With a rich output schema, clear annotations, and fully documented parameters, the description does not need to explain return values or parameter usage. It provides a thorough overview of the diagnostic categories, making the tool's function clear. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing from sibling tools, but the core context is sufficiently complete.

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 schema descriptions cover all four optional parameters (limit, table_name, schema_name, database_name) at 100% coverage. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies a clear action ('Get') and resource ('object and index diagnostics') and enumerates specific diagnostic categories (write-heavy nonclustered indexes, read/write usage, etc.), effectively distinguishing it from broader diagnostic tools. It tells the agent exactly what information to expect.

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 cases by listing the covered diagnostics, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like analyze_index_recommendations or get_table_stats. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given, so the agent must infer applicability from the list.

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