check_mysql_database

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it does not say whether the check is read-only, whether it can lock or stress tables on a live database, what permissions are needed, or how long it may take. The word 'Check' hints at a safe diagnostic, but that is inference rather than disclosure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the purpose arrives immediately. It is perhaps too terse for a tool with zero annotation coverage, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool this is minimally adequate: it names what is inspected but not what the result reports or what the agent should do with it. Given the absence of annotations, a sentence on read-only behavior or the repair follow-up would round it out.

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 single parameter 'name' is fully documented in the schema as the database name to check (100% coverage), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no format hints, such as whether a prefixed cPanel database name is expected.

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?

States a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('a database') and narrows the scope to table corruption and index issues, so the diagnostic intent is unambiguous. It stops short of differentiating itself from the sibling repair_mysql_database, which operates on the same objects.

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 run this check versus repairing, listing databases, or pulling server info. The agent must infer that this is a pre-repair diagnostic and that repair_mysql_database is the natural follow-up, but the description never says so.

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