deadlock_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only restates the function. It does not disclose whether the analysis is read-only, what lock sources it inspects (e.g., pg_locks), whether privileges are needed, or what the output format is—a significant gap for a diagnostic tool.

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 single sentence 'Analyze deadlock patterns and lock wait information' is concise and front-loaded with no filler. It loses a point because the available space could have carried more decision-relevant detail without becoming verbose.

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?

Though the schema is minimal (one optional parameter), the tool has no output schema or annotations, so the description alone must convey what to expect from a call. It omits output shape, safety profile, and parameter purpose, making it incomplete for a diagnostic operation.

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%, so the description needed to explain the optional database_name parameter, but it never mentions it. The schema's pattern and maxLength define format only; the agent cannot discern whether the parameter filters scope or targets a specific database.

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 uses the specific verb 'Analyze' with a clear resource ('deadlock patterns and lock wait information'), making the core function identifiable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from diagnostic siblings like transaction_monitor or diagnose_database, so it falls short of a 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is purely functional—it names no trigger conditions, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone among many diagnostic siblings.

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