analyze_security

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable context by specifying the 8 security checks performed and noting it's based on MySQLTuner's function, which clarifies scope and methodology beyond the annotations' safety profile.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a bulleted list of checks for clarity, and ends with implementation context. Every sentence earns its place by adding specific value without redundancy, making it efficiently structured and appropriately sized.

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 (security analysis with 8 checks), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It details the checks performed and implementation basis, though it could benefit from mentioning output format or interpretation guidance to fully compensate for the lack of output schema.

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%, with the single parameter 'include_user_list' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 the specific action ('Perform comprehensive MySQL security analysis') and lists 8 distinct security checks, making the purpose highly specific. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'analyze_user_privileges' or 'check_database_health' by focusing exclusively on security aspects rather than performance, privileges, or general health.

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 implies usage in security assessment contexts but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it lists specific checks, it lacks guidance on prerequisites, timing, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'analyze_user_privileges' or 'check_database_health' for overlapping concerns.

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