sql_diagnose_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description mentions it runs 'counts, NULLs in all columns, FK violations, and recent rows' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic summary — no mention of read-only safety, resource usage on large tables, potential performance impact, or whether it runs write operations. For a 'comprehensive diagnostic' running multiple operations, this is a notable gap.

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?

Two sentences, efficient and front-loaded with the most useful information (what it does) followed by contextual guidance (when to use). Zero wasted words, though it could arguably mention the output format.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description does a reasonable job describing what the tool does but leaves gaps: what the output looks like, how it handles large tables, and whether it's read-only are all undisclosed. For a complex multi-check diagnostic tool, a bit more detail about expected output or performance would help.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'table' parameter, which the schema describes as 'Table to diagnose.' The description reinforces that the table is the diagnostic target but adds minimal extra meaning — no guidance on table name format (schema-qualified? quoted?) or whether it accepts views or only base tables.

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 a specific action ('Run a comprehensive diagnostic on a table') listing the concrete checks performed: counts, NULLs, FK violations, recent rows. It distinguishes from siblings by combining multiple diagnostic checks into one tool, though it doesn't explicitly name competing tools.

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 explicitly says this is a 'great starting point when you notice something wrong,' giving clear situational context. It implies this is the first tool to try before more targeted ones like sql_check_nulls or sql_check_foreign_keys, though it doesn't name those alternatives or spell out when NOT to use it.

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