ecp_mysql_browse_rows

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior on its own. 'Browse' implies a read-only operation, and the authentication note clarifies that the tool connects using the provided db_username/password, which is relevant to access behavior. Still, it does not explicitly say it makes no modifications, nor does it explain what the operation returns, leaving an agent with some uncertainty.

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 2 sentences and both carry weight: the first states the action, the second gives a relevant credential constraint. There is no filler, repeated information, or schema paraphrasing. The structure is front-loaded and usable.

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 has 9 parameters, a nested filters object, and no output schema, so contextual completeness is a real need. The description does not explain how filters, pagination, or sorting behave, nor what a successful browse returns. An agent would likely have to experiment or guess with optional parameters despite the clear core purpose.

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 should compensate for the 9 parameters, but it adds meaning only to db_username/password by saying they identify an owned MySQL user. The meaning and format of filters, pagination (page/page_size), and sorting (sort_column/sort_direction) are left entirely to the schema, which has no descriptions. This falls short of the needed compensation for a large parameter surface.

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 states a clear operation ('Browse rows in a table') and identifies the resource domain ('MySQL user'), which is enough for an agent to recognize what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate this from the sibling mssql/postgres browse-row tools, but the tool name already carries that distinction. The second sentence adds a specific auth requirement, so purpose is clear.

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: use this when you need to browse MySQL table rows. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or call out alternatives, even though the sibling list includes mssql_browse_rows and postgres_browse_rows. The credential constraint ('must be a user this account owns') gives some practical usage guidance, but not enough for a fully routed choice.

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