get_db_health_running

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a read operation (get/analyze status), it doesn't describe what 'health status' includes, whether it requires specific permissions, if it impacts database performance, what format the output takes, or any error conditions. For a diagnostic tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise with just one bilingual sentence that states the core purpose. There's no wasted text or unnecessary elaboration. However, the bilingual format (Chinese followed by English translation in parentheses) is slightly redundant rather than optimally structured, though both parts contribute to clarity.

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 diagnostic nature, absence of annotations, and lack of output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what constitutes 'health status', what metrics or information are returned, whether this is a lightweight check or intensive analysis, or how results should be interpreted. For a health monitoring tool that likely returns complex status information, more context is needed.

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 schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It focuses correctly on what the tool does rather than parameter details, earning a baseline 4 for parameter semantics when no parameters need explanation.

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 as '获取当前mysql的健康状态' (Get current MySQL health status) with the English translation 'Analyze MySQL health status'. It specifies the verb (get/analyze) and resource (MySQL health status), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_db_health_index_usage, which suggests this might be a general health check while others focus on specific aspects.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like get_db_health_index_usage, get_table_lock, and optimize_sql that also relate to database health or performance, there's no indication of when this general health check is appropriate versus more specific diagnostics. The description lacks any context about use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to other tools.

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