mysql_status_delta

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the output format (counters as rates, gauges as t0/t1) but does not disclose that the tool takes two samples, how long sampling takes, whether it blocks, or what happens if the server is busy. The description is a terse summary, not a transparent behavioral contract.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core behavior (two samples) and the output transformation. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices necessary detail, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 one parameter, no annotations, and a rich set of siblings, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of sample_seconds, does not differentiate from mysql_global_status, and does not state any side effects or prerequisites. An agent would likely need to open the schema and guess at the parameter's role.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'sample_seconds' implicitly by saying 'Two GLOBAL STATUS samples' but does not explain that sample_seconds controls the interval between the two samples, nor does it give a recommended value or range. The parameter is left almost entirely to inference.

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 states that the tool samples GLOBAL STATUS twice and reports counters as per-second rates and gauges as t0/t1. This is a specific verb-resource pairing, but it does not explicitly say what the tool is for (e.g., monitoring deltas over an interval) or how it differs from mysql_global_status, which is a sibling. It is clear enough to identify the operation but not fully differentiated.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus mysql_global_status or other siblings. It does not state that this is for observing changes over time or that mysql_global_status is for a single snapshot. The only hint is the word 'delta' in the name, which is not enough for an agent to choose correctly.

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