stat_db_load

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that – no time-window behavior, aggregation granularity, rate limits, or result scope is disclosed. With annotations already carrying the safety profile, the bar is lower, but no additional behavioral value is provided.

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?

Short and front-loaded: the core purpose is in the first sentence, with a compact Args section after. No filler. Structure is fine, though the Args restatement is redundant at this length.

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?

A read-only statistics tool with a complete parameter schema and an output schema (so return values needn't be described). However, it omits the time-window semantics ('почасовая и посуточная' implies time aggregation) and any usage distinction from stat_db_list_load. Just adequate for a simple stats tool.

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 0% for the single db_name parameter, so the description should compensate. It only labels 'db_name: Имя базы данных' (database name), which is a tautology of the parameter name and adds no format, source, or lookup semantics. With one parameter and no additional meaning, a baseline 3 is mildly generous.

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?

States a specific resource and what is measured: 'Детальная статистика нагрузки БД: CPU, размер, почасовая и посуточная' (detailed DB load statistics: CPU, size, hourly and daily). It is distinguishable from siblings like stat_db_list_load or stat_site_load. However, 'время' is not clarified as a filter dimension, which would fully distinguish it from stat_db_list_load.

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?

No when-to-use guidance. The description doesn't tell the agent when to use stat_db_load versus stat_db_list_load, its closest sibling, despite that distinction being essential. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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