db-perf-intel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses data sources (endoflife.date) and benchmarks (TPC-C, pgbench, etc.), but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, side-effect-free, or specify any rate limits or authentication requirements. The behavioral traits are implied but not fully transparent.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the purpose and lists databases, then adds use-case context and data sources. Every sentence earns its place.

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 complete for the intended use cases but lacks information about the output format or structure. Since there is no output schema, agents would benefit from knowing what the response looks like (e.g., structured data per database). This gap limits completeness.

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 100%; each parameter has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, simply repeating the list of supported databases and include options. The schema already provides sufficient semantic meaning, so the description offers no additional value.

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 tool provides database performance intelligence including current versions, EOL status, and benchmark profiles for a specific list of databases. It also mentions use cases like infrastructure audits and database selection, distinguishing it from unrelated sibling tools.

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 for use ('mid-task for infrastructure audits, database selection, and upgrade urgency checks') but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. Since sibling tools are mostly unrelated, this context suffices.

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