db_info

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. 'Database server info' weakly implies read-only retrieval, but it does not explicitly state side effects, whether data is cached, what the response contains, or any prerequisites.

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 very short and front-loaded with no wasted words. However, 'Database server info.' is a terse fragment that under-specifies the tool's behavior, so brevity comes at the cost of useful content.

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 description is too minimal to be complete. It does not explain what 'info' means, how it relates to db_server_config, or whether it is a simple status/version read or something more. The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but the description still lacks operational 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so no parameter documentation is required. The description adds no parameter semantics, but nothing is needed; this is the standard baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 identifies the resource (database server) and the general intent (info), but it is a noun phrase rather than a verb-led statement and gives no indication of what specific information is returned. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like db_server_config, db_server_config_test, or system_info.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With a large sibling list containing db_list, db_get, db_server_config, and db_server_config_test, the description provides no decision support or exclusion criteria.

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