show_engine_innodb_status

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds minimal behavioral context, only stating 'Returns: the sql result.' This is acceptable given the annotations, but provides no details about the exact output format or any side effects.

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 short and to the point, with a clear structure of purpose, arguments, and returns. However, it could be more concise by removing unnecessary labels like 'Args:' and 'Returns:' if the schema already provides structure.

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 existence of an output schema, the return value description is less critical. However, the description lacks any contextual guidance, such as typical use cases or relationship to sibling tools, making it minimally complete.

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 must compensate by explaining parameters. It lists both parameters with their types and descriptions, but these descriptions are essentially restatements of the parameter names (e.g., 'The ID of the RDS instance'). This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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 action ('show engine innodb status') and the resource ('in db'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate it from sibling tools that also operate on DB instances, such as 'describe_db_instance_parameters' or 'query_sql'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent without information to select the appropriate tool among many database-related siblings.

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