get_blocking_queries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions 'comprehensive blocking queries analysis,' it doesn't describe what this entails operationally—such as whether it requires specific database permissions, if it's read-only or has side effects, how it handles large datasets, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence: 'Get comprehensive blocking queries analysis with lock information, hierarchy, and recommendations.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes key details without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity implied by 'comprehensive analysis' and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'blocking queries analysis' means in practice, what the recommendations entail, or how the results should be interpreted. For a tool that likely returns detailed database diagnostics, this leaves too much ambiguity for effective use.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter documentation in the description. The baseline for this scenario is 4, as the description appropriately doesn't waste space on non-existent parameters, though it doesn't add value beyond the schema (which already fully covers the lack of parameters).

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 purpose: 'Get comprehensive blocking queries analysis with lock information, hierarchy, and recommendations.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('blocking queries analysis') with additional details about what the analysis includes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_db_health' or 'get_top_queries,' which prevents a score of 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'analyze_db_health,' 'get_top_queries,' and 'execute_sql,' there's no indication of when this specific blocking queries analysis is appropriate, what prerequisites might exist, or when other tools should be used instead. This lack of contextual guidance is a significant gap.

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