atlas-get-performance-advisor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by specifying that it returns a sample of the most recent slow query logs (max 50) and listing the types of recommendations, which gives insight into response content beyond the 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and main included features, earning every word.

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 (5 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. The description, combined with the schema's parameter documentation, provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. A minor gap is that the description doesn't mention parameter interdependencies (e.g., 'since' only relevant for slowQueryLogs), but the schema covers this.

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%, meaning each parameter is documented in the schema. The description does not add further meaning to the parameters themselves, so the baseline score of 3 applies. The description's mention of 'operations' aligns with the schema's operation enum, but no additional semantic detail is provided.

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 function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('MongoDB Atlas performance advisor recommendations and suggestions'), and enumerates the specific operations included (suggested indexes, drop index suggestions, schema suggestions, slow query logs). This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which cover performance advisor functionality.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. However, the schema descriptions for parameters (e.g., projectId suggests using atlas-list-projects if only name is known) offer some contextual usage hints, but the tool description itself lacks this. Usage context is only implied by the tool's name and purpose.

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