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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('connect') but doesn't reveal critical traits: whether this creates a persistent connection pool (implied by connectionLimit parameter), authentication requirements beyond parameters, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. For a connection tool with multiple parameters, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool definition and front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity of a database connection tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., connection object, success status), error conditions, or behavioral nuances like connection pooling. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all 7 parameters with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying a connection action. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema handles the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or provide extra context.

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 'Connect to a MySQL database' clearly states the verb ('connect') and resource ('MySQL database'), providing a basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like mysql_setup_persistent (which might also establish connections) or specify what type of connection is established (e.g., session vs. pool). This makes it adequate but vague compared to alternatives.

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. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for one-time queries versus persistent connections, or how it relates to mysql_setup_persistent or mysql_disconnect. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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

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. It states the tool 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions required, whether it's safe for production use, potential rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., columns, data types). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient, scoring a 2.

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 a single, efficient sentence: 'Get table structure and schema information.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for the tool's function, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 moderate complexity (describing table schemas), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, or usage context. It's complete enough to understand the basic purpose but leaves gaps in practical application, scoring a 3.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters (table and database). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what 'structure and schema information' entails or how parameters affect the output. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't enhance it.

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 'Get table structure and schema information' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('table structure and schema information'). It distinguishes from siblings like mysql_list_tables (which lists tables) and mysql_query (which executes queries), but doesn't explicitly contrast with them, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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 when to prefer mysql_describe_table over other tools like mysql_query for schema inspection or how it relates to mysql_list_tables. Without any usage context or exclusions, it scores a 2.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Close') but doesn't describe what happens upon closing (e.g., terminates sessions, releases resources, irreversible without reconnection), potential side effects, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely involves resource management.

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 a single, clear sentence with zero waste—'Close the MySQL connection'—making it front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action without extraneous details.

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 (managing database connections) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the outcome (e.g., success/failure indicators, what happens to pending queries), prerequisites, or error handling, leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand full usage 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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter details, so it meets the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters, as it avoids unnecessary complexity.

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 ('Close') and the resource ('MySQL connection'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'mysql_connect' or 'mysql_status', but the verb 'Close' versus 'Connect' or 'Status' provides inherent distinction.

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 prerequisites (e.g., requires an open connection), exclusions (e.g., don't use if no connection exists), or relationships to siblings like 'mysql_connect' for setup or 'mysql_status' for checking connection state.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying it's read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't confirm this explicitly. It also doesn't describe output format (e.g., array of strings), error conditions, or any side effects (e.g., whether it requires specific permissions). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence ('List all available databases') that is front-loaded with the core purpose. There is zero waste—every word earns its place by specifying the action, scope, and resource without unnecessary elaboration.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, simple list operation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but omits critical context like output format, error handling, and usage prerequisites. For a discovery tool in a database context, more completeness would be helpful, but it meets the minimum viable threshold.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters. It correctly implies no inputs are required for listing databases.

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 'List all available databases' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('databases') with the scope modifier 'all available'. It distinguishes from siblings like mysql_list_tables (which lists tables, not databases) and mysql_query (which executes queries). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from mysql_status (which might also provide database information), keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing to connect first with mysql_connect), when it's appropriate (e.g., for discovery vs. querying), or exclusions (e.g., not for modifying databases). This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't specify whether it requires specific permissions, what format the output takes (e.g., array of table names), if there are rate limits, or any error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks important operational context for a tool that interacts with a database.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's function. There's zero wasted language, no redundancy, and it's perfectly front-loaded with the essential information. Every word earns its place in this minimal but complete statement of purpose.

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 this is a database interaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (table names, metadata?), doesn't mention authentication requirements (though siblings suggest connection management), and provides no context about error handling or constraints. For a tool that presumably returns structured data from MySQL, more context is needed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'database' fully documented in the schema as optional and defaulting to current. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (it doesn't mention the parameter at all). According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 ('List tables') and resource ('in the current database'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like mysql_list_databases (which lists databases) and mysql_describe_table (which describes a specific table). However, it doesn't specify that this lists ALL tables or mention any filtering capabilities, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 when to use mysql_list_tables versus mysql_query for table listing, or how it relates to mysql_describe_table for detailed table information. The only implicit context is 'current database,' but no explicit usage scenarios or exclusions are provided.

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

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. 'Execute a MySQL query' implies a write operation could occur, but it doesn't specify whether this tool is read-only, destructive, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on errors. For a database tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence ('Execute a MySQL query'), which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core action, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 complexity of a database query tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple siblings, the description is incomplete. It lacks context on behavior, return values, error handling, and integration with other tools (e.g., mysql_connect). This makes it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('query' and 'params'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as query syntax examples or param usage details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.

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 'Execute a MySQL query' clearly states the verb ('Execute') and resource ('MySQL query'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential alternatives or specify what type of queries it handles (e.g., SELECT, INSERT, DDL). Compared to siblings like mysql_list_tables or mysql_describe_table, the distinction is implied but not explicit.

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 prerequisites (e.g., requiring a connection via mysql_connect), appropriate query types, or when to choose other tools like mysql_list_databases for specific tasks. Usage is implied but not stated, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'persistent connection' and 'default credentials' but doesn't explain what persistence entails (e.g., connection pooling, reuse), authentication requirements beyond parameters, or potential side effects like resource consumption.

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?

Extremely concise with a single, clear sentence that front-loads the core purpose. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 connection setup tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on what 'persistent' means operationally, what 'default credentials' implies, error handling, or what successful setup returns, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for high coverage.

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 ('Set up') and resource ('persistent connection'), specifying it uses 'default credentials'. It distinguishes from 'mysql_connect' by implying persistence, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like 'mysql_status' or 'mysql_disconnect'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'mysql_connect' or other siblings. The description mentions 'default credentials' but doesn't explain what that means or when this is preferred over other connection methods.

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

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. It states the tool checks connection status and database info, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what 'database info' includes (e.g., version, uptime), whether it requires an active connection, or any side effects like performance impact. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence: 'Check connection status and database info'. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero waste, and is appropriately sized for a simple tool. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on what 'database info' includes or behavioral aspects. With no output schema, it doesn't explain return values, which is a gap. For a diagnostic tool, more context on expected outputs would improve completeness.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter details since there are none, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing schema info.

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 as 'Check connection status and database info', which specifies the verb 'check' and the resources 'connection status and database info'. It distinguishes from siblings like mysql_query (executes queries) and mysql_list_databases (lists databases), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate them. The purpose is specific but could be more precise about what 'database info' entails.

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 prerequisites (e.g., after mysql_connect), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like mysql_list_databases (which might provide overlapping info). Usage is implied as a diagnostic check, but no explicit context is given.

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