mysql_wait_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose one relevant trait: the result may be empty if wait instruments are disabled. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether it requires special privileges, or what the output shape is (though an output schema exists). This is partial transparency but not comprehensive.

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 that is immediately informative and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a useful caveat. There is no fluff, and every word earns its place. It is appropriately concise for a tool with no parameters.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description provides the essential behavior and an important caveat about instrumentation. It could explicitly mention that it is a read-only operation, but that is often implied by the nature of the tool. Overall, the agent can call it correctly without further information, so it is nearly complete.

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 input schema is empty with zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, and it does not attempt to. There is no ambiguity in parameters.

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 'Top wait events' clearly identifies the resource (wait events) and indicates it returns the top ones. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like mysql_processlist or mysql_global_status, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb+resource construction. It adds a useful caveat about instrumentation, so it is not a tautology.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The caveat about wait instruments being disabled is a condition that affects results, but it does not tell the agent when to choose this tool or when to avoid it. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions.

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