get_db_health_index_usage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes what information the tool returns but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), whether it requires specific database permissions, potential performance impact on the database, or how current the data is (real-time vs cached). The description focuses on output content rather than tool behavior.

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 efficiently structured in a single sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose and the three specific types of index usage information it provides. The bilingual format (Chinese then English) adds some redundancy but doesn't significantly impact clarity. Every part of the description serves a purpose.

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 the tool's complexity (analyzing multiple aspects of index usage) with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It specifies what information will be returned but doesn't describe the format, structure, or potential limitations of the output. For a diagnostic tool with potentially complex output, more detail about the return format would be helpful.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and it correctly focuses on what the tool does rather than parameter details.

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's purpose: 'Get the index usage of the currently connected mysql database' with specific details about what information it provides (redundant indexes, poorly performing indexes, top 5 unused indexes with query times >30 seconds). It distinguishes from siblings like get_table_index (which likely shows index structure) and get_db_health_running (which likely shows current running queries). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings in the text.

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 implies usage context (when analyzing MySQL database performance issues related to indexes) but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_table_index or optimize_sql. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, though the tool name suggests it's part of a database health monitoring suite.

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