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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral insight. It states the action ('connect') but doesn't disclose what happens on success/failure, whether it establishes a persistent session, authentication requirements beyond parameters, rate limits, or side effects. This is inadequate for a connection tool that likely manages state.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a straightforward connection tool, earning its place by stating the core action.

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 the complexity of a database connection tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., connection handle, success status), error handling, or how the connection integrates with sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these are 'connection parameters,' which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('connect') and resource ('MySQL database'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes this as an initialization/connection tool rather than a query or metadata tool, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'mysql_disconnect' beyond the obvious opposite action.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., must be called before other MySQL tools), when not to use it (e.g., if already connected), or how it relates to sibling tools like 'mysql_disconnect' for cleanup.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify if it requires specific permissions, what the output format looks like (e.g., column details, data types), or any potential errors (e.g., if the table doesn't exist). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly. This exemplifies optimal conciseness.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves structural information. It does not explain what the output includes (e.g., column names, types, constraints) or how to interpret it, which is crucial for an AI agent to use the tool effectively. The schema covers parameters well, but overall context is lacking.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('table' and 'database') with their purposes and optionality. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('structure/schema of a specific table'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'mysql_show_indexes' or 'mysql_get_table_stats', which might also provide structural information, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'mysql_list_tables' (for listing tables) or 'mysql_show_indexes' (for index details), nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing an active connection. This lack of contextual usage information limits its helpfulness for an AI agent.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Disconnect' implies a state change operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this closes all connections or just the current session, whether it's reversible, what happens to pending transactions, or any cleanup behavior. For a state-changing tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool and front-loads the essential information immediately.

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-parameter connection management tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic action but leaves important behavioral questions unanswered. Without annotations or output schema, the description should address more about what 'disconnect' actually means operationally - whether it's immediate, what gets cleaned up, and what state the system is left in.

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 zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description correctly implies no parameters are needed, establishing baseline 4. No additional parameter semantics are required or provided.

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 action ('Disconnect') and target resource ('from the MySQL database'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings beyond the obvious - it doesn't explain why you'd use this versus simply not calling mysql_connect or letting connections time out naturally.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (must be connected first), doesn't specify when disconnection is necessary versus optional, and doesn't reference sibling tools like mysql_connect that establish the connection being terminated.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as performance impact, permissions required, whether it's cached or real-time, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with a database.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, though 'etc.' is vague and could be more precise. Overall, it's appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what statistics are returned (e.g., format, specific metrics beyond row count and size), behavioral context, or usage guidelines. For a database tool with potential complexity, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (table and database). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying statistics are for a table, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'statistics about a table', specifying the type of information (row count, size, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like mysql_describe_table (schema structure) and mysql_query (general queries), though not explicitly named. However, it could be more specific about what 'etc.' includes.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like mysql_describe_table for schema details or mysql_query for custom statistics, nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., connection state). Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks clear differentiation.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists databases but doesn't describe output format (e.g., array of strings), pagination, error handling, or permissions required. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a simple, parameter-less tool and is front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It covers the basic purpose but doesn't address behavioral aspects like output format or dependencies (e.g., connection state). For a tool with no structured data to rely on, it should provide more context to be fully helpful to an agent.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, but it could have mentioned implicit context (e.g., relies on an existing connection). Since there are no parameters, a baseline of 4 is applied, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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 action ('List all databases') and the target resource ('on the MySQL server'), using specific verb+resource phrasing. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like mysql_list_tables (which lists tables within a database) and mysql_query (which executes SQL queries), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring a connection via mysql_connect), exclusions (e.g., not for filtering or querying), or comparisons to siblings like mysql_get_table_stats. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List all tables') but doesn't describe behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential permissions required, rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list of table names, pagination). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and scope, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying what is listed and under what conditions.

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 the tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter context, but lacks details on behavioral aspects and output, which are important for a tool with no annotations. For a simple list operation, it meets the minimum viable threshold but doesn't provide a complete picture for safe and effective use.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, documenting that 'database' is optional and defaults to the current database. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'current or specified database,' which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional semantics like format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('tables'), specifying scope ('all tables in the current or specified database'). It distinguishes from some siblings like mysql_describe_table (single table details) and mysql_list_databases (databases instead of tables), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from mysql_get_table_stats which also operates on tables. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 usage context by mentioning 'current or specified database,' which helps understand when to specify the database parameter. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mysql_list_databases (for listing databases) or mysql_get_table_stats (for table statistics). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('execute a SQL query') but omits critical traits such as whether it supports read/write operations, potential side effects (e.g., data modification), error handling, or performance implications (e.g., query timeouts). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that could perform destructive actions.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse, and every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the purpose.

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 the complexity of executing SQL queries (which can range from safe reads to destructive writes), the lack of annotations and output schema makes the description incomplete. It fails to address behavioral risks, return formats, or error conditions, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool safely and effectively in a database 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 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'query' and 'parameters' fields. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as query syntax examples or parameter usage details, but this is acceptable given the high schema coverage, resulting in a baseline score.

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 verb ('execute') and resource ('SQL query on the connected MySQL database'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like mysql_describe_table or mysql_list_tables, which also involve database operations but with different intents.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., requiring mysql_connect first), exclusions (e.g., not for schema changes), or comparisons to siblings like mysql_get_table_stats for specific query types, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only (implied by 'Show'), what permissions are required, the format of the output (e.g., a list of indexes with columns), or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe and effective use.

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, efficient sentence: 'Show indexes for a specific table.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a simple tool. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on output format, behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature, error handling), and usage context. While the schema covers parameters well, the description doesn't compensate for missing annotations or output schema, leaving gaps in understanding how to interpret results.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('table' and 'database'). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it mentions 'a specific table' but doesn't elaborate on parameter usage or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Show indexes for a specific table' clearly states the verb ('Show') and resource ('indexes'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like mysql_describe_table (which shows table structure) and mysql_list_tables (which lists tables), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The description is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring a connection via mysql_connect), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like mysql_describe_table (which might include index info) or mysql_get_table_stats (which could have index statistics). Usage is implied from the name but not articulated.

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