get_statements_with_errors

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, non-destructive operations. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the tool excludes queries against MySQL system schemas (mysql, information_schema, etc.) to focus on user/application analysis, which is important operational guidance not captured in annotations.

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 efficiently structured with four sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: stating the core function, listing what it identifies, explaining the use case, and providing an important exclusion note. There's no wasted text, and the most critical information (what the tool does) appears first.

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?

For a read-only tool with good annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description provides strong contextual completeness. It explains the tool's focus, use case, and important exclusions. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description compensates somewhat by indicating what information will be returned (error counts, warning counts, error rates).

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 both parameters (limit, errors_only) well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without providing additional parameter semantics.

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: 'Get statements that produce errors or warnings' with specific criteria (error counts, warning counts, error rates). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_slow_queries' or 'get_statements_with_full_scans' by focusing on problematic queries with errors/warnings rather than performance issues.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool ('Helps identify problematic application queries') and includes an important exclusion note about MySQL system schemas. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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