MySQL JSON Keys

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it operates 'at the specified path' and returns keys, which is useful context beyond annotations. It does not disclose any potential side effects or limitations (e.g., behavior on non-object JSON). With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary details.

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 high parameter count (14) and presence of an output schema, the description is minimal but functional. It does not clarify typical usage patterns (e.g., specifying column and table) or the relationship between aliases. However, since the schema covers parameters and an output schema exists, the description is adequate but could be improved for a tool with many parameters.

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%, so all 14 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. For example, it does not explain how 'path' defaults to root or how the aliases interact. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 retrieves keys of a JSON object at a specified path. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('keys of a JSON object'), and it distinguishes from siblings like mysql_json_extract (which extracts values) or mysql_json_get (which retrieves values).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or scenarios where other tools (e.g., mysql_json_contains, mysql_json_search) would be more appropriate. The sibling list includes many JSON tools, but no differentiation is provided.

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