db_get_usage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves usage statistics but does not indicate whether it is read-only, what happens if the database does not exist, or any authentication or permission requirements. For a simple retrieval tool, it would benefit from noting that it only reads data.

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 concise and well-structured, using Args/Returns format. It avoids redundancy and provides the essential information in a scannable way. A minor improvement would be to separate the prose summary from the argument details, but it is efficient.

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 tool is simple, and the presence of an output schema (though not shown) covers return details. However, the description does not clarify how this differs from db_analyze_database_performance or other db-related tools, and it does not mention potential rate limits or data freshness. It is adequate but leaves some gaps for a tool with many siblings.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description clearly explains the 'database_id' parameter with an example and acceptable formats ('my-mysql-db' or UUID). This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only specifies type string. The single parameter is well-documented, warranting a high score.

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 action (Get) and resource (database usage statistics) with specific metrics (CPU, memory, disk). It is distinct from many siblings, but it does not differentiate from the similar-sounding db_analyze_database_performance, leaving ambiguity. The verb-resource combination is specific enough for a high score, but lack of sibling differentiation prevents a 5.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to related tools like db_analyze_database_performance. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and description, which is insufficient.

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