performance_get_database_performance_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves metrics but does not mention any potential limitations, rate limits, or permissions. For a read-only monitoring tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 with two paragraphs. It front-loads the purpose and lists key deliverables. The 'Returns:' line is slightly redundant but adds clarity. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It mentions query statistics, slow queries, connection pool, and health tests, which is sufficient for this context.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since there are none.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'database query performance metrics and connection pool status'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'performance_analyze_database_index_usage' and 'performance_get_cache_performance_status' by focusing on database performance metrics.

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 states 'Use this to identify database performance bottlenecks and optimization opportunities', providing clear context. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but given the sibling tools, the usage is sufficiently clear for a zero-parameter tool.

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