Run HANA health check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read nature is well covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by enumerating the diagnostic areas covered (memory metrics, top tables, blocked transactions), which helps the agent set expectations. It does not mention performance impact or required permissions, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the action and then efficiently lists the key diagnostic components. Every part adds value, with no filler or repetition.

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?

The tool is moderately complex and has no output schema, so the description must convey enough about scope and results. It lists the main diagnostic categories, giving a solid sense of what will be returned, though it stops short of detailing the exact response format. Given the breadth of a health check, this is reasonably complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'schema_name', fully describing its purpose and default. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but since the schema already carries complete semantics, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Run a read-only diagnostic snapshot against the HANA database.' It lists concrete components (database info, services, memory metrics, top tables, blocked-transaction count), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like hana_memory_monitor or hana_show_config that target narrower areas.

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 for broad health checking, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. No sibling tool is referenced for comparison, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and description.

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