get_storage_diagnostics

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 covered. The description adds the specific diagnostic content but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits such as required permissions, potential side effects, or how 'high-usage warnings' are computed. It adds some value but not rich behavioral context.

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, well-structured sentence with a front-loaded purpose, followed by a concise list of included metrics. 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter fully covered by schema), the presence of an output schema, and annotations that establish safety and idempotency, the description covers all necessary context. It tells the agent what the tool does, what data it returns, and the parameter is self-documented.

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% (the only parameter, database_name, is fully described with its default). The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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's function with a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('Azure SQL storage diagnostics'), and enumerates the exact metrics returned (database/file size, log usage, VLF counts, last VLF status, high-usage warnings). This distinguishes it from sibling diagnostic tools focused on wait stats, IO, or tempdb.

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 provides clear context by listing the storage-related metrics, making it obvious when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or scenarios when sibling tools might be preferred; it stops short of providing explicit exclusions.

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