mysql_innodb_trx

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It communicates useful diagnostic context and the consequence of long transactions, but it never explicitly says the operation is read-only, what privileges are needed, or whether it only lists currently open transactions. The phrasing 'Open InnoDB transactions' is slightly ambiguous and could be misread as an action verb.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the resource and key fields; the second adds a practical diagnostic insight. Every word earns its place.

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 no-parameter monitoring tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool exposes and why it matters. It could be more complete with an explicit read-only statement and direct comparison to related diagnostic tools, but the core invocation context is sufficiently provided.

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 there are no parameter meanings for the description to clarify. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate because no schema coverage gap exists.

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 a specific resource (InnoDB transactions) and lists the reported dimensions (age, thread, query), making its purpose fairly clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like mysql_processlist or mysql_lock_waits, so it misses the strongest form of differentiation.

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 warning that long trx_age_sec pins locks/history implies this tool is useful for investigating long-running transactions, but there is no explicit statement about when to choose it over siblings or when not to use it. Usage guidance is only implicit.

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