check_database_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety aspects. The description adds valuable context about what gets analyzed (specific MySQL components) and mentions it's 'based on MySQLTuner analysis concepts', which provides implementation context. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or performance impact.

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 appropriately sized with clear bullet points listing analyzed aspects. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently structured, though the final sentence about MySQLTuner could be integrated more seamlessly.

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?

For a read-only diagnostic tool with good annotations and no output schema, the description provides comprehensive context about what gets analyzed and the return format (health score with breakdown). It could benefit from mentioning the format of recommendations or score range, but covers most essential aspects given the tool's complexity.

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%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (include_recommendations and verbose). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 performs a 'comprehensive MySQL database health check' with specific aspects analyzed (connection statistics, buffer pool, InnoDB metrics, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools by covering multiple areas rather than focusing on specific components like 'analyze_buffer_pool' or 'get_replication_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 implies this tool should be used for broad health assessment rather than specific analyses, but doesn't explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives like 'review_settings' or 'calculate_memory_usage'. It provides clear context about what it analyzes but lacks explicit exclusion criteria or named alternatives.

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