Сведения о подключении и правах

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the concrete diagnostic fields returned and the key mental model that two independent constraint layers affect query success.

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?

Two focused sentences: the first enumerates exactly what the tool reveals, and the second gives actionable guidance on when to call it. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name or title.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully enumerates the returned information categories (connection identity, MySQL version, database size, grants, server limits) and the intended diagnostic use case. This is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in context.

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 the baseline is 4. The description adds no param-specific detail, which is appropriate because no input parameters exist.

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 identifies the tool as an introspection/diagnostic operation: it shows the connected database, user, MySQL version, database size, grants, and MCP-server restrictions. This distinguishes it from the sibling data-access tools (list_tables, query, execute) by role and scope.

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 gives explicit situational guidance: 'worth calling first if it is unclear why a query was rejected' and explains that MySQL permissions and server-side restrictions are independent. It lacks named alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it does not fully reach the top criterion.

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