mysql_global_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only snapshot by saying 'curated keys', but it doesn't explicitly state that it performs a read, whether it is instant, or if any special privileges are required. The lack of explicit safety or side-effect information is a notable gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the purpose and gives concrete examples immediately. Every word earns its place; it is appropriately concise.

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 has an output schema (though not shown) and no parameters, the description is moderately complete. It explains the subset of status keys but doesn't clarify the output format (e.g., single row vs. multiple rows) or whether the values are current snapshots. It also doesn't mention any rate limits or performance implications, which could matter for frequent monitoring calls.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by indicating the categories of keys returned, which helps the agent understand what kind of data to expect. It doesn't need to explain parameter syntax, but it could list the exact keys; however, the examples suffice.

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 returns 'Curated SHOW GLOBAL STATUS keys' and gives examples (threads, tmp tables, InnoDB locks, QPS counters). This conveys a specific resource (global status) and a filtered scope. It distinguishes from a full SHOW GLOBAL STATUS but doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like mysql_status_delta, so it falls short of a 5.

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 doesn't mention that mysql_status_delta is for changes over time or that mysql_variables covers settings. An agent has to infer usage from the name and sibling list, which is insufficient.

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