DB status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating 'keyless' and specifying the targets (sqlite files, postgres/redis reachability), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not, however, describe what the probe actually does (e.g., open connections, ping, read files) or what conditions count as reachable, so it only modestly increases transparency.

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 very short and front-loaded: 'Keyless DB probe' immediately conveys the core purpose, followed by the list of targets. It wastes no words, though it is a fragment rather than a complete sentence and omits a clear imperative verb, which slightly reduces structural quality.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it names the target systems and the probe intent. Yet given the large sibling set containing db_query, db_tables, and redis_get, the description would benefit from stating when this probe is preferred (e.g., for quick health checks without credentials) and what 'reachability' means. The missing usage context prevents a higher 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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully describes the input surface. The description adds nothing about parameters, but none are needed; the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 identifies a specific resource (sqlite files, postgres/redis) and a distinct operation kind (probe for reachability/status), which is not a generic restatement of the name 'DB status'. However, it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than a clear imperative verb like 'Check', and it does not explicitly contrast with db_query/db_tables or redis_get, so it is clear but not maximally action-oriented.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as db_query, db_tables, redis_get, or system_summary. The word 'keyless' hints that it is for probing without credentials, but the description never states a condition like 'use this to check reachability before running a query' or names any sibling alternative.

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