enumerar_banco_mysql

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions direct access and warns about authorization, which is good. Yet it doesn't disclose whether the tool is purely read-only (enumeration) or if it performs any writes, nor does it describe potential side effects or error behavior. More transparency on safety and impact is needed.

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 four sentences: main purpose, when to use, an example, and a warning. It is front-loaded with the core function, uses no filler words, and every sentence adds value. Highly efficient.

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 complexity (5 params, potential security implications) and that an output schema exists, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, usage context, and authorization warning. It could mention whether it attempts default creds or how it handles authentication failures, but overall it is adequately complete for agent decision-making.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description adds value by providing a concrete use case for the 'database' parameter (passing 'wordpress' to extract hashes from wp_users) and hints at default credentials. This extra context enhances parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 it connects to MySQL and enumerates databases, tables, users, and password hashes. It gives a concrete example (WordPress wp_users hashes) and differentiates from siblings like scan_sql_injection_sqlmap by emphasizing direct database access rather than injection.

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?

Explicitly says when to use: 'Use quando Nmap identificar porta 3306 exposta com credenciais fracas.' It also provides a specific scenario for WordPress. However, it doesn't mention alternatives or cases where it should not be used, so it's not a full 5.

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