mysql_show_processlist

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does (shows running queries/connections) without mentioning safety implications, required privileges, performance effects, or the shape of the returned data. It does not contradict any annotations, but it provides minimal insight into potential side effects or limitations.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and includes the relevant MySQL command in parentheses for clarity. There is no extraneous information or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Despite being a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description lacks contextual completeness. It does not explain what the returned data looks like, how it differs from similar tools like mysql_list_connections, or any behavioral caveats. This leaves the agent without sufficient context to confidently select and invoke the tool in more nuanced scenarios.

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 includes one optional parameter 'alias' with a description ('MySQL connection alias (optional, uses default if omitted)'), giving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description itself adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so it relies on the schema, which is sufficient. Baseline 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 states the tool shows all running queries and connections with a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('all running queries and connections in MySQL'), and references the underlying SHOW FULL PROCESSLIST command. It is specific enough to understand the tool's function, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like mysql_list_connections, which could overlap in scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mysql_list_connections or mysql_show_status. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage solely from the tool name and brief description.

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