ping

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior (testing connection) and outputs (server version, current db, pool status), indicating a safe, read-only operation. However, it does not mention potential failure modes or performance impact, which is acceptable for a simple ping tool.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and returns. Every part is informative with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately defines the tool's purpose and outputs. It is sufficient for an agent to understand when to invoke ping. Could mention prerequisites (e.g., established connection) but not necessary for a simple connectivity test.

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 tool has no parameters, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information beyond the schema, which already has 100% coverage. It correctly focuses on the tool's action and return values.

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?

Description clearly states the tool tests MySQL database connection and specifies the returned information (server version, current database, connection pool status). It uses a specific verb ('test') and resource ('MySQL 数据库连接'), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like get_server_status or execute_query.

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 implies the tool is for checking connectivity, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., before queries) or when not to use it. No exclusions or context cues are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose.

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