connection_stats

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this a safe read, so the '[READ]' prefix adds nothing new. The description does add the useful behavioral detail that the output compares counters against max_connections, but says nothing about thresholds, cost, or freshness of the counters. Modest added value above annotations.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by a compact Args block; every sentence earns its place. The '[READ]' tag is slight redundancy against readOnlyHint=true, but the payload is tight.

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 single-optional-param diagnostic with no output schema, the description tells the agent what is measured and how to address the instance. It is adequate, though it never describes the shape of the returned counters, which an agent may want before deciding to call it.

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 0%, so the description must carry the param burden, and it does: 'target: Target name from config; omit for the default' explains both the value source and the default behavior. It stops short of naming an example target or explaining fallback failure, but it is far better than the bare schema.

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 verb and resource — connection counters compared against max_connections — plus the motivation (exhaustion early warning). It is clear what the tool inspects, but it does not distinguish itself from near-neighbors like overview, show_status, or show_variables that also surface connection info.

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 parenthetical 'exhaustion early warning' implies the usage context (capacity monitoring), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative for related diagnostics. The agent must infer that this is the right tool versus overview or show_status.

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