Alibaba Cloud RDS OpenAPI MCP Server

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations. The annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description doesn't provide additional behavioral details like whether this requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what format the execution plan returns. It doesn't contradict annotations, but adds little value beyond them.

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 reasonably concise with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. However, the parameter explanations are overly terse and could benefit from more detail given the 0% schema coverage. The structure is functional but not optimally informative.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 required parameters, database operation) and the presence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to detail return values, but with 0% schema coverage and no behavioral context beyond annotations, it leaves the agent with insufficient guidance for proper tool 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries full burden for parameter documentation. While it lists all 4 parameters with brief explanations, these are minimal (e.g., 'the region id of instance' for region_id). It doesn't provide format examples, constraints, or relationships between parameters, leaving significant gaps in understanding how to properly use them.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'show sql execute plan'. This is a specific verb ('show') + resource ('sql execute plan'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'query_sql' or 'describe_sql_insight_statistic', which might have overlapping database analysis functions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'query_sql' (which might execute SQL) or 'describe_sql_insight_statistic' (which might provide performance insights), leaving the agent to guess when this specific execution plan analysis is appropriate.

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