server_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The [READ] prefix indicates a safe, non-mutating operation, which is valuable. However, it does not disclose potential failure modes, output format, or security/permission requirements, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 a clear first line stating purpose and a compact parameter note. Every sentence adds value, and the [READ] prefix is an efficient behavioral cue. No redundancy or 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 tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description lists the returned data fields, which is helpful, but it does not explain the return format (e.g., object keys) or provide context about the target instance. For a basic info tool, this is adequate but has room to add more 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that 'target' is a name from config and can be omitted for the default, adding meaning beyond the schema's raw type. Though brief, it clarifies the only parameter's role.

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 with a specific resource ('server') and the exact data it returns: version, flavor (mysql/mariadb), uptime, and read-only state. The [READ] prefix reinforces it as a read operation. This distinguishes it from sibling diagnostic tools by listing its specific output.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as 'show_variables' or 'overview'. The parameter explanation ('target: Target name from config; omit for the default') is useful for invoking the tool but not for choosing it. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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