prepared_statement

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Analyze', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state whether it requires special permissions, whether it executes any queries, or what the output format is. This lack of transparency could lead to incorrect assumptions about side effects or access requirements.

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 directly conveys the tool's purpose. It avoids unnecessary detail and is easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more structured by front-loading the key action and adding a brief note on parameters, but it remains appropriately brief.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain what the agent can expect from the tool's return value. It mentions 'cache hit ratio and query patterns' but does not clarify the format, granularity, or whether it returns a report or raw data. For a diagnostic tool, this incompleteness hampers effective use.

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 schema includes one optional parameter 'database_name' but provides no description of its purpose or how it affects the analysis. The tool description also fails to mention the parameter, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the name alone. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should have compensated by explaining the parameter's role, but it did not.

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's function with a specific verb ('Analyze') and a defined resource ('prepared statement cache hit ratio and query patterns'). It distinguishes itself from generic query tools by focusing on prepared statement cache metrics, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like statements_enhanced.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention whether to use it for performance diagnostics, cache tuning, or how it relates to other diagnostic tools such as get_slow_queries or statements_enhanced. The absence of usage context makes it hard for an agent to select it appropriately.

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