get_statements_with_temp_tables

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explains why temporary tables are problematic (performance issues from disk creation, frequency, size) and that it excludes MySQL system schemas, which helps the agent understand the tool's focus and limitations without contradicting annotations.

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 context on performance issues and exclusions. Each sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second explains why it matters, the third states the goal, and the fourth clarifies scope. No wasted words.

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 analysis tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It provides purpose, context, and exclusions. However, without an output schema, it does not describe the return format (e.g., what fields are included in statements), leaving a minor gap in contextual understanding.

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 documentation for both parameters (limit and disk_only). The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'disk_only' relates to the performance issues mentioned. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema handles parameter documentation fully.

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 ('Get statements that create temporary tables') and resource ('statements'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_slow_queries or get_statements_with_errors by focusing on temporary table creation. The title 'Temp Table Statements' reinforces this specificity.

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 for when to use this tool: to identify queries that should be optimized due to temporary tables causing performance issues. It excludes MySQL system schemas to focus on user/application analysis, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools among siblings.

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