mysql_get_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description gives no auth requirements, side-effect profile, rate limits, or return format, leaving most behavioral traits unstated.

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 short phrase, front-loaded and free of waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple no-parameter status retrieval tool, even though it is under-specified 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?

This is a simple no-parameter tool, but there is no output schema and the sibling list contains many overlapping status/info operations. The description does not explain what 'status' returns or when to prefer it over mysql_get_info or mysql_get_variables, so selection context is incomplete.

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 zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline score for a zero-parameter tool is 4.

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?

Description gives the verb 'Get' and resource 'server status' within MySQL, so the basic purpose is understandable. However, it largely restates the tool name mysql_get_status and does not distinguish it from sibling tools such as mysql_get_info, mysql_get_variables, or redis_get_status.

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, prerequisites, or alternatives are stated. The agent must infer that this is for MySQL server status rather than mysql_get_info or redis_get_status, which is exactly the kind of selection guidance missing.

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