connect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the connection behavior and fallback to environment variables, but lacks details on permissions needed, error handling, connection persistence, rate limits, or what happens on failure. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by important usage context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal. It covers the basic purpose and usage but lacks details on return values, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. It's adequate for a simple connection tool but has clear gaps 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%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters (host, port, user, password, database). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as default values or format requirements. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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: 'Connect to a MySQL database.' It specifies the action (connect) and resource (MySQL database). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'use_database' or 'health_check', which might also involve database connections or checks.

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: 'If not called explicitly, will use environment variables for connection.' This indicates when to use it (for explicit connection setup) versus relying on defaults. It doesn't specify alternatives like other connection methods or exclusions, but the context is helpful.

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