Get VLF Counts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the ordering guarantee (worst first), the platform requirement (SQL Server 2016 SP2+), and the operational significance of high VLF counts.

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?

Three tight sentences: what is returned and how it is sorted first, why it matters second, prerequisite last. No redundancy or filler.

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-required-parameter read-only diagnostic with full annotation coverage and a fully documented single parameter, the description supplies enough context to invoke it confidently. No output schema exists, but the description does not characterize the return shape (column names, whether it includes log size), leaving a small gap.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter's meaning, default, and minimum are fully documented in the schema; the description merely restates the default of 1000. It adds no syntax or behavioral nuance for the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (virtual log files in transaction logs) and the exact selection/ordering rule: databases whose log has more VLFs than the threshold, worst first. No sibling tool covers VLF counts, so it is trivially distinguished from the rest of the mssql_* family.

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 sentence 'Many VLFs slow recovery, restores and log backups' gives clear diagnostic context for when to reach for this tool, and the version prerequisite is stated. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but none are obviously required for a unique diagnostic.

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