analyze_wait_events

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

Annotations already provide key behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true), so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context by explaining what wait events are and what they help identify (e.g., lock contention patterns, resource saturation), which goes beyond the annotations and aids in understanding the tool's scope and output implications.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by bullet points that efficiently detail wait event types and analysis benefits. Every sentence earns its place by adding clarity 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 complexity (analyzing wait events for bottlenecks), annotations cover safety (read-only, non-destructive), and schema fully documents parameters, the description provides good context on what the tool analyzes and why. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not specify return format or data structure, leaving a minor gap in completeness.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters (event_category with enum values, top_n with default). The description does not add specific parameter semantics beyond the schema, but it lists event categories (e.g., lock waits, I/O waits) that align with the enum, providing some contextual reinforcement. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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: 'Analyze MySQL wait events to identify bottlenecks.' It specifies the verb ('analyze'), resource ('MySQL wait events'), and goal ('identify bottlenecks'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on other MySQL aspects like queries, indexes, 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 implies usage by listing what wait events indicate and what they help identify (e.g., I/O bottlenecks, lock contention), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_query' or 'get_slow_queries'. No exclusions or direct comparisons to sibling tools are provided.

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