Get phpMyAdmin Token

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

The description conveys that the result is an authentication token for phpMyAdmin database access, which is useful behavioral context. However, with only openWorldHint as an annotation, it omits important details such as token expiration, sensitivity, or whether obtaining the token has side effects on the environment.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, resource, scope, and purpose efficiently.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies what is returned (a token) and the required scope (environment). The main gap is the lack of any detail about token lifetime or how the token should be used, though this is not critical for invoking the tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents env_id as 'The environment ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond restating that the token is for an environment, so the baseline of 3 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 names the specific verb ('Get'), resource ('a phpMyAdmin login token'), and scope ('for an environment'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling access tools like wpa_login-url or ssh_config by specifying phpMyAdmin and database access.

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 gives a purpose clause ('to access the database') that implies when the tool would be used, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. Among many sibling tools, this routing is left to inference.

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