Get connection info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-obvious context beyond that: that only user names are exposed and passwords live in Secrets and are never returned, which prevents an agent from expecting or requesting credentials.

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 sentence that front-loads the core payload (primary/replica hosts, port, users) and appends only the one caveat that matters (passwords never returned). No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return and does so adequately — endpoints, port, and user names. It could have clarified structure (e.g., how primary vs replica hosts are distinguished or whether a list is returned), but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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% — name, context and namespace are each documented inline (including the PERCONA_NAMESPACE default). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a concrete verb-less but clear retrieval target — connection endpoints for a cluster — and enumerates the returned fields (primary/replica Service hosts, port, declared users), so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not, however, contrast itself with close siblings like get_cluster or get_cluster_status, which also operate on a cluster.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The description only states what data is returned; an agent must infer that this is the tool for connectivity details rather than configuration or status.

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