replica_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it prefixes with [READ], explains the flavor branching between MySQL 8.x and MariaDB, and notes normalization. It lacks details on permissions or rate limits, but for a status read these are less critical.

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: front-loaded with the [READ] tag and purpose, followed by a short caveat, flavor explanation, and parameter docs. Every sentence contributes, with no fluff.

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 covers purpose, behavior, and parameters, including the primary/standalone caveat. It does not describe the return structure or field details, but given the absence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity, the coverage is reasonably complete.

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 only parameter 'target' is explained as 'Target name from config; omit for the default.' This fully compensates for the schema's 0% description coverage, though it is terse and assumes familiarity with config.

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 reads replica thread state and lag, referencing SHOW REPLICA/SLAVE STATUS. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing specifically on replica status and noting flavor-branched behavior.

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 context that the result is empty on a primary/standalone server, implying it is for replicas. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like replication_lag_rca, making usage guidance somewhat implicit.

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