get_replication_status

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

Annotations already provide key behavioral traits: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds value by specifying what is analyzed (e.g., replication errors, binary log configuration) and compatibility with MySQL/MariaDB, which offers context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, keeping the score at a baseline level with some added context.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose ('Get MySQL replication status and health') followed by a bulleted list of analyses and a compatibility note. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, and the structure is clear and efficient, making it easy for an AI agent to parse and understand quickly.

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 replication status across multiple aspects), the annotations provide good behavioral coverage (read-only, idempotent, etc.), and the schema fully describes the single parameter. The description adds meaningful context on what is analyzed and compatibility, compensating for the lack of an output schema. However, it could be more complete by mentioning output format or typical use cases, slightly limiting the score.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'check_all_channels' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining when to set the parameter to true or false. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not need to given the schema's completeness.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get', 'Analyzes') and resources ('MySQL replication status and health'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on replication rather than other database aspects like queries, indexes, or storage. The explicit mention of analyzing master/source status, slave/replica status, errors, binary log configuration, and semi-sync status provides a detailed scope that sets it apart from tools like 'get_galera_status' or 'get_group_replication_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?

The description implies usage context by specifying it 'Works with both MySQL and MariaDB terminology,' which suggests when this tool is applicable. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_galera_status' or 'get_group_replication_status,' nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is present but limited to compatibility, lacking detailed comparative advice.

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