get_db_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility. It implies a read-only operation via 'Retrieve' and specifies the measured metrics, giving useful transparency. However, it omits details like potential performance impact, permission requirements, or output structure, leaving some gaps.

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, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the action and resource, followed by a concise list of metrics. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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 simple, parameterless diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the core purpose and key metrics. However, it does not specify details like the ordering or limit of 'top tables' or the exact format of the returned data, leaving minor ambiguity.

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, and the schema confirms this (100% coverage). The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly focuses on the output without needing to explain parameters.

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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieve' and clearly identifies the resource as 'database health & performance metrics,' enumerating concrete outputs: database size, top tables by disk usage, active connections, and cache hit ratio. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_tables or read_query, which serve different purposes.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when you need database health or performance metrics. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the unique purpose within the sibling group is evident.

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