replication_status

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not state that the tool is read-only, requires special permissions, or that the output format follows MySQL's SHOW REPLICA STATUS convention. The agent is left to infer safety and 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 extremely concise at one sentence, with no filler. It front-loades the core purpose immediately. However, it could be slightly expanded to include the output nature without losing conciseness.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It equates the tool to a well-known SQL command, which provides implicit context. However, it lacks explicit details about result structure or error cases.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'connection' is well-documented in the schema with a clear description and default value. The tool description adds no additional context, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 indicates the tool returns replication status by referencing 'SHOW REPLICA/SLAVE STATUS', which is a specific and well-known SQL command. This distinguishes it from the general 'status' sibling tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The verb 'show' is implicit but clear in context.

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 provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'status' or 'server_info'. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as having replication configured, or conditions under which the query returns empty results.

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