get_query_compilation_stats

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

Annotations already disclose the read-only, non-destructive, idempotent nature. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by naming the DMV source and the 50% threshold, aligning with the expected read-only behavior without contradiction.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences that immediately communicate the action, data source, and threshold. Every word earns its place with no 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?

For a read-only diagnostic tool with strong annotations, a full output schema, and well-documented parameters, the description covers the essential purpose and threshold. Mentioning the 50% ratio and sys.dm_exec_query_stats is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters (top_n and database_name) have clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so 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 identifies excessively recompiled queries from sys.dm_exec_query_stats with a specific threshold (recompile ratio > 50%). This precise verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling diagnostic tools like get_top_queries or get_query_wait_stats.

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?

Usage is implied: if you need to find queries with high recompilation, this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or comparisons to related tools.

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