ecp_mysql_list_db_users

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'List' communicates a read-only, non-destructive operation, but the description doesn't mention the output structure or which default user is excluded. These are minor gaps for a simple enumeration 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?

One sentence, no filler, action-first phrasing, and a parenthetical that adds needed disambiguation about scope. Every element earns its place.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly and distinguish it from sibling tools. It could say a bit more about what the returned list contains, but nothing essential is missing for correct 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 tool has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter documentation burden. The schema is trivially complete and the baseline of 4 applies.

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 concrete operation ('List'), a specific resource ('MySQL users'), and a clear boundary ('additional... beyond the account's own default user'). This differentiates it from similar Postgres/MSSQL user-listing tools and from the account's default user.

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 makes the use case clear: use it to enumerate non-default MySQL users on the account. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but for a zero-parameter read-only list tool, the context is sufficient and no exclusions are needed.

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