mysql_table_io

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool returns a list of tables, but does not disclose whether it is a read-only query, any performance impact, or required permissions. This lack of behavioral context could mislead an agent about potential side effects.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately front-loaded with the key outcome.

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 tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It specifies the data scope and exclusions, but could add when to use it relative to siblings and any potential caveats about query cost or privileges. Still, the essential information for calling the tool is present.

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, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage (trivially). The description correctly focuses on the output and filtering behavior, which is sufficient given there are no input parameters to document.

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 explicitly states the tool returns the hottest application tables by IO wait and excludes internal schemas (mysql/performance_schema/sys). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mysql_processlist or mysql_global_status, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 such as mysql_wait_events or mysql_digest_top. It does not mention any conditions or exclusions beyond the schema exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when this is the appropriate choice.

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