db_security_status

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the exact return fields (readonly, allow_writes, allow_ddl, etc.), giving the agent concrete behavioral expectations beyond the abstract hints.

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: one line for the purpose and a code block for the return format. Every word earns its place, and the structure front-loads the core action then gives details.

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 no parameters, clear annotations, and an output schema in the description, the tool is fully specified. An agent can understand what it does, that it's safe, and what it returns without further context.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the baseline score of 4 applies as no compensation is necessary.

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 states 'Report the active security policy' and provides the return format, making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like db_list_aliases, db_list_collections, and db_execute_query, which deal with listing or querying data, not security status.

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 implies usage for checking security status but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No guidance on when not to use or conditions is provided, leaving it to the agent to infer.

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