mysql_status

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.