show_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly begins with [READ], indicating a read-only operation, and references the SQL command SHOW GLOBAL STATUS. However, it does not disclose return format, potential performance impact, or privilege requirements.

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 brief and front-loaded with [READ] and the core purpose. The Args section is cleanly structured, and every sentence adds value without redundant 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?

While the tool is simple, the description does not specify the return format (e.g., list of name-value pairs) or any limitations (e.g., pattern matching behavior). It gives enough to start but lacks details that would help a complete understanding.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining both parameters. It clarifies pattern as an optional substring filter with examples, and target as a config name with a 'default' fallback. This adds meaningful detail beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool shows global status counters (SHOW GLOBAL STATUS), using a specific verb and resource. It is distinctly different from siblings like show_variables or connection_stats.

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 explains how to use arguments (pattern, target) but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or comparison with sibling tools are provided.

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