status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool returns ('global status variables') but gives no details on side effects, read-only nature, error conditions, or output format. The agent cannot infer safety or behavior from this minimal text.

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 (a single phrase), which is good for brevity, but it lacks structure and detail. It is front-loaded but does not use the space to add meaningful information. It's acceptable but not exemplary.

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 complexity of the domain (database status variables) and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what distinguishes 'status' from similar tools, what the return values look like, or how to use the pattern parameter effectively. The lack of an output schema exacerbates this gap.

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 100%, meaning both parameters ('pattern' and 'connection') have adequate descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 'Key global status variables' indicates the tool returns global status variables, which is somewhat specific. However, it lacks clarity on what exactly constitutes 'status' (e.g., MySQL SHOW GLOBAL STATUS) and does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'variables' or 'innodb_status'. It suffices minimally.

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 versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over others like 'innodb_status' or 'server_info'. The description is insufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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