server_version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, and the '[READ]' prefix is largely redundant with it. What the description does add is the shape of the returned information (version, flavor, uptime, read-only state), which is real context given there is no output schema. It says nothing about auth requirements, latency, or whether 'read-only state' means server-wide or session-level.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: the payload is described first, then the single argument. The only waste is the '[READ]' tag, which duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation rather than adding information.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers both the invocation (target/default behavior) and the expected fields. It does not describe the response format or units for uptime, but for a simple version probe that is a minor omission.

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% — the schema only exposes a nullable string named 'target' with default null. The description compensates by explaining that target is a 'Target name from config' and that omitting it selects the default, which is exactly the missing information an agent needs.

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 resource (server) and enumerates exactly what is reported: version, flavor (mysql/mariadb), uptime, and read-only state. An agent can tell this apart from generic siblings like show_status or show_variables by the specific payload listed. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to prefer when only a version string is wanted.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The '[READ]' tag hints at a safe diagnostic call, but with siblings such as overview, show_status, show_variables, and list_engines available, the description never says which one to pick or under what condition.

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