query_mysql

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying '只读模式' (read-only mode), which aligns with the readOnlyHint=true annotation. However, it doesn't provide additional behavioral context such as connection handling, timeout behavior, result format, or error conditions. With annotations covering safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description meets the lower bar but doesn't enrich understanding significantly.

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 with a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose and constraint. It's front-loaded with no wasted words, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action, target, and operational mode.

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 tool's complexity (6 required parameters for database connection and query execution), the description is minimal. While annotations provide safety information (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and the schema fully documents parameters, there's no output schema and the description doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., result sets, error formats). For a database query tool, this leaves gaps in understanding the complete behavior.

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 description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the input schema, which has 100% description coverage. It mentions 'MySQL数据库查询' (MySQL database query) but doesn't explain individual parameters like host, port, or querySql. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the full burden of parameter documentation.

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 verb ('执行' - execute) and resource ('MySQL数据库查询' - MySQL database query), and specifies the operational mode ('只读模式' - read-only mode). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning MySQL specifically, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other database types like MSSQL, Oracle, or PostgreSQL.

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 context by specifying '只读模式' (read-only mode) and the input schema further clarifies that SQL queries should be '仅支持SELECT等只读操作' (only support SELECT and other read-only operations). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling database tools (query_mssql, query_oracle, query_postgresql), nor does it provide any exclusion criteria beyond the read-only constraint.

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