mysql_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the account-scoping constraint. No auth requirements, rate limits, or return-shape context are provided, but with annotations covering the behavior, baseline is appropriate.

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?

A single short phrase with zero waste and the resource front-loaded. However, it's arguably too terse — it lacks any actionable context (when to call, relation to siblings), so it is efficient but under-specified.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values needn't be explained. But with 53 sibling tools and no usage guidance, the description is incomplete for helping an agent select this tool versus backup_mysql_list or stat_db_list_load. It is minimally adequate but leaves a clear selection gap.

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?

Zero parameters, so per rubric the baseline is 4. There are no parameters to document, and the schema description coverage is 100%. No additional parameter meaning is needed.

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 states 'All MySQL databases on the account' — a specific resource (MySQL databases) with scope (on the account). This distinguishes it from a generic 'list' but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'backup_mysql_list' beyond the implicit read-only listing. The verb 'list' is implied rather than stated, keeping it at vague-but-adequate clarity.

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 when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, no exclusions. The description only identifies what is returned, not when an agent should call this tool versus other mysql_* tools. This is a significant gap.

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