mysql_legacy_ping

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint:false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the exact query executed and the return shape {connected, version}, which goes beyond annotations and clarifies expected behavior. It does not describe failure behavior, but for a ping-style tool this is a minor gap.

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 three short sentences, each carrying distinct value: what it executes and returns, when to call it, and what to use for other needs. No redundant or filler wording. Every sentence 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 ping tool with complete safety annotations, the description covers purpose, usage timing, return value, and key alternatives. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit return object. No critical information is missing for correct selection and invocation.

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 baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the empty schema already confirms none are required. It also implicitly reinforces that the tool takes no arguments by focusing entirely on the connection check.

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 identifies the tool as a MySQL connection check using a specific SQL statement (SELECT VERSION()) and a defined return object. This distinguishes it from siblings focused on schema, data, or DDL. The verb 'Checks' plus the resource 'MySQL connection' makes the 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 explicitly instructs to 'Call this first after connecting', establishing a clear usage ordering. It also names alternatives for schema access (mysql_legacy_list_tables) and row data (mysql_legacy_select), so an agent knows when not to use this tool. This is ideal routing guidance.

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