get_innodb_status

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond this by detailing what gets analyzed (e.g., actionable recommendations for optimization, specific metrics like hit ratios and contention), though it doesn't mention rate limits or auth needs, which are not critical here.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by a bulleted list of parsed elements, and ending with context and recommendations. Every sentence earns its place by providing specific details without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 (analyzing multiple InnoDB metrics), annotations cover safety aspects, and schema fully describes parameters. The description adds comprehensive analysis details and optimization context, compensating for the lack of output schema. However, it could slightly improve by hinting at output format or linking to sibling tools for deeper analysis.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters (include_raw_output and detailed_analysis). The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, as it focuses on analysis content rather than parameter usage. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents parameters without extra description input.

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 explicitly states the tool 'Analyze InnoDB engine status from SHOW ENGINE INNODB STATUS' with a specific verb ('analyze') and resource ('InnoDB engine status'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like analyze_buffer_pool or analyze_innodb_transactions by covering comprehensive InnoDB metrics including buffer pool, logs, transactions, deadlocks, and I/O.

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 context by listing what it parses (e.g., buffer pool statistics, deadlock information) and mentions it's 'Based on MySQLTuner's InnoDB analysis patterns,' suggesting it's for optimization scenarios. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_innodb_transactions or get_table_stats, which could overlap in some areas.

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