analyze_auto_increment

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations. While annotations indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent operations, the description specifies that it analyzes only user/custom tables and excludes MySQL system tables by default, and mentions it's based on MySQLTuner's analysis. This provides practical implementation details that annotations don't cover.

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 well-structured and efficiently written. It starts with the core purpose, lists specific checks in bullet points, adds important notes about scope limitations, and credits the methodology source. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand.

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's moderate complexity (analyzing database columns for overflow), the description provides good context about what it analyzes and its limitations. With comprehensive annotations covering safety and behavior, and no output schema needed for this diagnostic tool, the description is mostly complete. It could slightly improve by mentioning the format of results or typical use cases.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents both parameters (warning_threshold_pct and schema_name). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation without providing extra semantic context.

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 purpose: analyzing auto-increment columns for potential overflow. It specifies what checks are performed (current vs maximum value, usage percentage, tables approaching overflow) and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on auto-increment analysis rather than other database aspects like security, queries, or replication.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: for analyzing auto-increment overflow risks in user/custom tables. It explicitly excludes MySQL system tables by default, which helps define its scope. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools for related tasks.

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