review_settings

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-mutating operation. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies that the tool 'analyzes key performance-related settings' and 'compares against best practices and system resources,' clarifying its analytical nature and scope. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 with the core purpose. It uses bullet points efficiently to list analyzed settings, avoiding redundancy. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the bullet points into a single sentence.

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 analytical nature, annotations cover safety (read-only, non-destructive), and schema fully documents parameters, the description provides adequate context. It explains what the tool analyzes and its comparison methodology. However, without an output schema, it doesn't detail the format of recommendations, leaving a minor gap in completeness.

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 (category and include_all_settings). The description doesn't add specific parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the 'replication' category or the implications of include_all_settings. However, it does imply the tool's focus on 'performance-related settings,' which aligns with the parameters' functionality.

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: 'Review MySQL configuration settings and get recommendations.' It specifies the verb 'review' and resource 'MySQL configuration settings' with the outcome 'get recommendations.' It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on configuration analysis rather than performance monitoring, query analysis, or health checks like other tools.

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 the specific settings analyzed (memory, InnoDB, connections, etc.), suggesting it's for performance tuning and best practices. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_database_health' or 'analyze_query,' nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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