mop_check_database_connection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type (DatabaseStatus with connection status, version, paths) and implies a non-destructive health check. Yet it omits details like timeout behavior or whether any configuration is required, which would strengthen transparency.

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 well-structured with headings (PURPOSE, WHEN TO USE, Returns) and is highly concise. Every line adds value, front-loading the main purpose before supporting 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?

For a simple zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete, covering purpose, usage, and return values. A minor gap is the lack of clarification about which database is checked (mop vs. sd), which could be relevant given the sibling sd_check_database_connection.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description naturally adds no parameter-specific information, as there are none to document. The schema with empty properties confirms this, making the description complete on this dimension.

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 checks database reachability and responsiveness, with an explicit PURPOSE line. However, it does not distinguish between this tool and the similarly named sibling sd_check_database_connection, relying on the name prefix to imply a different database.

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?

A dedicated WHEN TO USE section provides clear scenarios: troubleshooting failed tools, verifying setup, and health monitoring. It does not mention when not to use it or direct to alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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