analyze_innodb_transactions

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying what gets analyzed (long-running transactions, lock waits, deadlock history, etc.), which helps the agent understand the scope and nature of the analysis operation. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 efficiently structured with a clear opening statement, a bulleted list of analysis categories for quick scanning, and a closing sentence about purpose. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, and the information is front-loaded for immediate understanding.

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 complexity (analyzing multiple transaction aspects), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and 100% schema coverage, the description provides good contextual completeness. It clearly explains what the tool analyzes and why. The main gap is the lack of an output schema, but the description compensates somewhat by listing analysis categories that hint at return values.

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 100%, with both parameters ('include_queries' and 'min_duration_sec') well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('analyze') and resource ('InnoDB transactions and locking'), then lists five concrete analysis categories. It explicitly distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'analyze_query' or 'get_innodb_status' by focusing specifically on transaction and locking analysis rather than general queries or status.

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 about when to use this tool ('Helps identify transaction-related performance issues'), which differentiates it from siblings focused on other aspects like security, storage engines, or user privileges. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools for overlapping concerns.

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