Get Disk I/O Latency

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the output shape (per-file metrics plus an Exceptional-to-Critical rating), which is useful, but says nothing about scope (instance-wide vs. filtered), freshness, or cost of the scan.

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?

Two tight sentences: the returned metrics come first, the intended use case second. No filler, no repetition of the tool name, nothing that could be cut.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so reasonably by listing the metrics and the rating scale. It omits what governs the rating thresholds and whether results are per-instance or filtered, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; nothing needs to be disambiguated and the description is not required to explain any inputs.

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 resource (disk I/O latency per database file) and enumerates the returned metrics (reads, writes, avg read/write stall in ms, rating scale). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like mssql_storage_capacity (capacity, not latency) and mssql_wait_stats (engine waits, not per-file I/O).

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?

'Use to find slow storage' gives an explicit diagnostic context for when to reach for this tool. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., capacity planning vs. latency triage), so it is clear context without routing detail.

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