fb_database_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source (MON$ tables) and enumerates the diagnostic outputs, implying a read-only operation, but never states that it is side-effect free or whether special privileges are needed. The multi-database handling note adds real behavioral context.

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?

A short lead line followed by a scannable bullet list of what is diagnosed, then a procedural caveat. Front-loaded and mostly waste-free, though the trailing guidance sentence could be tightened.

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 diagnostic tool with no annotations, no output schema, and one undocumented parameter, the description does a decent job of explaining what is checked, but it leaves the sole parameter and the read-only nature unspecified. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 single parameter db_alias has 0% schema coverage and the description never defines it (type, format, or meaning). The closest is the procedural note about asking the user when multiple databases exist, which gestures at database selection but does not explain the parameter itself.

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?

Specific verb ("Diagnostica") plus a precise resource (Firebird database integrity/telemetry via the MON$ system tables). The bullet list names exactly what is inspected (engine/ODS version, page size, sweep interval, OAT gap, active connections/transactions/statements), which clearly separates it from generic siblings like fb_query or fb_inspect_table.

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 via what it reports (diagnostics/health check) but never states when to prefer it over fb_query or fb_inspect_table. It does add one useful precondition rule — ask the user when multiple databases exist and none is active — which is more than a bare tool.

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