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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently lists all four pieces of information returned, making the tool's behavior clear. It doesn't discuss permissions or error conditions, but for a read-only info tool this is acceptable.

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 with no redundancy or wasted words.

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 information tool with no output schema, the description fully captures the returned fields, making it complete within its scope.

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 takes zero parameters, so the description needs no further explanation. Baseline 4 applies.

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 explicitly states the tool returns current database, user, effective user, and server version, which is a specific and distinct purpose from sibling tools like mysql_query or mysql_list_databases.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose — it's the tool to call when you need connection context — but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it or when to prefer an alternative.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the output ('column metadata and optional indexes') but does not explicitly confirm that the operation is read-only, describe error behavior, or mention permission requirements. The read-only nature is implied by the name 'describe', which is a conventional MySQL operation, so this is moderately transparent but not fully disclosed.

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 immediately conveys the tool's purpose without redundant words or additional filler. Every word contributes meaning.

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 introspection tool, the description provides a high-level summary of the return value ('column metadata and optional indexes') but does not elaborate on what fields the column metadata includes (e.g., type, nullable, key). Given there is no output schema, more detail would help complete the picture, but the description is not severely inadequate.

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 has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, with each parameter including a meaningful description. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable because the schema already documents them clearly.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and clearly identifies the resource ('table') and the returned content ('column metadata and optional indexes'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like mysql_query, mysql_list_tables, and mysql_list_databases by focusing on table schema introspection.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as when to choose it over mysql_query or mysql_list_tables. No exclusions or context are provided, leaving usage up to inference from the tool name and sibling names.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds context by noting the 'read-only' user and visibility scope, but does not describe return format, pattern filtering effects, or error behavior. This is some, but not rich, behavioral 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose and access scope.

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 read-only listing operation with one optional parameter, the description provides sufficient context (action, resource, scope). The schema covers the parameter, and the absence of an output schema is mitigated by the obvious return type implied by 'List'. Could be slightly more detailed, but adequate for this low complexity.

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 single optional parameter 'pattern' is fully described in the schema as 'Optional MySQL LIKE pattern.' The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so the baseline score of 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's action ('List') and resource ('databases'), with a specific scope ('visible to the configured read-only MySQL user'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like mysql_list_tables and mysql_query, which target different resources or operations.

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 enumerating databases but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like mysql_query or mysql_list_tables. It also lacks mention of prerequisites or exclusions, though the 'read-only' phrasing hints at safe usage.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states it lists tables and views but does not mention the default inclusion of views, how the 'selected database' is determined, output format, or any side effects. This is minimal coverage beyond the raw capability.

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, clear sentence that conveys the action, resource, and scope without any filler. It is appropriately sized for a list operation and front-loads the essential information.

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 list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a basic understanding of what it does. However, it lacks details about return format, behavior when database is omitted, and whether views are included by default. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% because all three parameters (pattern, database, includeViews) have descriptions. The description's mention of 'current or selected database' adds slight context to the database parameter, but it essentially repeats the schema. 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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'tables and views' and scopes it to 'the current or selected database.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like mysql_list_databases (lists databases) and mysql_describe_table (describes a single table).

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 context that the tool operates on 'the current or selected database,' implying use when you need to discover tables/views. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over siblings like mysql_describe_table or mysql_query, nor does it state any exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the critical behavioral constraint: only read-only statements are allowed, with explicit statement types. The term 'safe EXPLAIN' adds nuance beyond the schema. It does not cover failure modes or permissions, but the core safety behavior is clearly stated.

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?

Two sentences contain the essential information without padding. The first sentence states the action and constraint, and the second enumerates the allowed statements. Front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core usage context: what query types are permitted and that it is read-only. It could mention the result shape, but for a generic query tool that is reasonably obvious; the schema handles parameter details.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: sql is described as read-only SQL and maxRows has its limit and bounds documented. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it stays at the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('MySQL query'), clearly stating it executes read-only statements. The allowed statements list (SELECT, WITH SELECT, SHOW, DESCRIBE/DESC, safe EXPLAIN) differentiates it from sibling tools that list databases/tables or describe tables.

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?

It establishes clear context: this is the generic read-only query tool, while specialized siblings like mysql_list_databases, mysql_list_tables, and mysql_describe_table cover narrower cases. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion rules like 'use mysql_describe_table when you only need a table schema'.

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