diagnose_database

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely lists the components (cache, connections, vacuum, indexes, sequences) without stating whether the operation is read-only, requires special permissions, runs any internal queries, or could have side effects. This 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 description is extremely concise, consisting of a single, front-loaded phrase that efficiently conveys the tool's scope. It contains zero filler words and every component listed adds value. While it is under-specified, that is a completeness issue, not a conciseness issue.

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 tool has 3 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many specialized sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, parameter usage, or how this composite tool differs from the individual specialized tools. The description provides only a high-level overview, leaving the agent to guess at critical operational details.

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%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (database_name, include_queries, include_connections) or their meaning. The description's list of components does not map to the parameters; for instance, 'include_queries' and 'include_connections' are not alluded to. The description completely fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as a 'Composite database health check' and enumerates the specific areas it covers (cache, connections, vacuum, indexes, sequences). This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from the many specialized sibling tools (e.g., get_connections, sequence_monitor, index_dedup) by emphasizing its comprehensive nature.

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 phrase 'composite health check' implies this tool is for an overall assessment rather than a single-focused check, but no explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool vs. alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or recommendations, so usage is only implied.

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