mysql_connect

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.