get_statements_with_full_scans

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, establishing this as a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the performance impact of full scans, specifies exclusion of system schemas, and clarifies the tool's focus on user/application queries. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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, explains the significance of full scans, lists identification criteria, states the optimization value, and adds an important exclusion note. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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, comprehensive annotations (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent), and full parameter documentation, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains the tool's focus, exclusions, and optimization purpose. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description compensates reasonably well for a diagnostic tool.

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, both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides about 'limit' and 'min_rows_examined'. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but not enhanced parameter documentation.

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: 'Get statements that perform full table scans' with specific criteria (queries without indexes or with non-optimal indexes). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_slow_queries' or 'analyze_statements' by focusing specifically on full scan performance issues.

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 ('prime candidates for index optimization') and what it excludes (MySQL system schemas). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools from the sibling list for different types of query analysis.

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