Check database health

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

The description transparently lists the health checks performed and the return structure (status and checks list). Since annotations already mark it as read-only, this adds useful behavioral context 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 concise: two sentences plus an example. It is front-loaded with the core action and details. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words.

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 simple single optional parameter and the described output structure (status and checks), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, input, and return format. No additional context needed.

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% with a clear explanation of the optional parameter. The tool description does not add further parameter semantics, but the schema already provides adequate meaning. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 runs database health checks and lists specific checks (connection utilisation, buffer cache hit ratio, tables needing vacuum, invalid indexes). This differentiates it from sibling analysis or audit tools, making the purpose explicit and distinct.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like audit_database or other check tools. The description implies a quick health overview but does not provide context for selection or exclusion.

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