get_database_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a solid job: it reveals the discovery behavior, supported database types, scope ('in application directories'), and the exact JSON return content including operational state, socket accessibility, and ping latency. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only, but 'discover and verify' strongly implies non-destructive behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded: first the core purpose, then the detection scope, then the return format. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no filler or redundancy that weakens the definition.

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 zero-parameter health-check tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it defines scope, supported engines, and return contents. It leaves minor ambiguity about whether databases must be local or whether credentials are needed, but these are not critical for an initial discovery/health check call.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior and return value instead.

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 action with a clear resource: discovering running databases and verifying their responsiveness, latency, and socket states. It names the exact database engines covered, which further distinguishes it from generic system health tools among the siblings.

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 this tool is for database health checks by listing supported engines and return details, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over siblings like get_system_health or check_service_status. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives.

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