get_plan_cache_analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context by specifying what analysis dimensions it covers (distribution, bloat, top plans, ad-hoc pollution), which goes beyond the 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 two sentences, front-loads the primary action, and contains no redundant phrases. It packs the essential information (what it analyzes and what it detects) without waste.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains the tool's purpose and key diagnostic outputs. The only gap is explicit usage guidance relative to siblings, but overall it provides enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 only parameter, database_name, is fully described in the schema with a default and explanation. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description need not elaborate. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable per the baseline.

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 ('Analyze') and resource ('plan cache') and enumerates concrete outputs: plan type distribution, single-use plan bloat, top plans by size, and ad-hoc query pollution detection. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_top_cached_queries or plan_health_review.

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 the tool is for diagnosing plan cache health and detecting ad-hoc pollution, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Given many sibling tools, more explicit guidance would be valuable.

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