Show Current Connection

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

Annotations already cover the read-only and idempotent nature of the tool, so the description's main contribution is clarifying that the connection shown is the one used by read-only tools. This adds useful shared-state context beyond the annotations.

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 leads with the action and specifies exactly what the tool reports. It contains no filler, no repetition of the title, and no unnecessary detail.

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 status tool with no output schema, the description fully conveys what the agent will learn (the current server and database) and the relevant scope (read-only tools). Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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, so there are no parameters to document. Per the baseline for a zero-parameter tool, a score of 4 applies because the description does not need to add parameter meaning that does not exist.

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 states a precise operation ('Show') and a concrete object: which MySQL server and database the read-only tools are currently pointed at. This differentiates it from siblings like list_connections and list_databases, which concern available connections and databases rather than the active 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?

The description clearly implies when to use the tool: when an agent needs to know the current MySQL server and database context for read-only tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but for a zero-parameter status check the context is sufficient.

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