db_analyze_database_performance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral traits. It does disclose that the tool returns a 'performance analysis with health score and optimization recommendations,' which clarifies the output shape. However, it does not mention whether the analysis is read-only, whether it may impact database performance, or if any special permissions are required. The verb 'analyze' implies non-destructive, but this is not made explicit.

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 with the purpose statement, followed by clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value—no filler or redundant restating of the tool name. It is appropriately sized for a single-parameter analysis tool.

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 description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly: it names the operation, the parameter, and summarizes the return. Since an output schema exists, the description need not detail the return structure. Missing guidance on when to use it (vs alternatives) and any behavioral caveats (read-only, permissions) leaves slight gaps, but for a simple analysis tool it is nearly 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does this by explaining the lone parameter: 'database_id: The database ID or label (e.g., 'my-mysql-db' or UUID)'. This adds context beyond the raw schema (string, required) with an example and clarifies what kind of value is accepted. It fully covers the required parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Analyze database performance' followed by 'provide optimization recommendations.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like db_get_usage (retrieving usage metrics) and db_analyze_database_migration_status (analyzing migration status). The description is unambiguous about the tool's core function.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over other db_* analysis tools. There's no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or context like 'use when your database is running slowly' or 'for performance optimization recommendations.' The agent must infer usage purely from the name and generic wording, which is inadequate given many sibling database tools.

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