sunucu_sagligi

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

The description notes the tool is read-only ('Salt-okunur'), which is a key behavioral trait. However, with no annotations provided, it does not disclose other potential behaviors like permission requirements or side effects. The read-only hint is useful but incomplete.

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, concise sentence that efficiently lists the tool's output fields. No extraneous words or redundant information.

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 no output schema, the description adequately lists the returned fields (version, edition, CPU, memory, uptime, database counts). However, it does not specify the exact output format or scope (e.g., single instance vs. cluster), but it is sufficient for a simple health summary.

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 no parameters, so the description inherently provides complete information about inputs. With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, no additional parameter details are needed.

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 provides a general health summary of SQL Server, listing specific metrics (version, edition, CPU, memory, uptime, databases). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on active queries or missing indexes.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'aktif_sorgular_blocking' or 'eksik_indexler'. It only describes what it does, without context on appropriate use cases or limitations.

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