检查达梦连接与权限开关

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it reads session and instance metadata only, touches no business tables, and returns permission-flag status. No contradiction with 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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core function and outputs, the second gives the exact trigger condition for use, and the third clarifies scope. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no-parameter diagnostic tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, what it returns, when to use it, and what it will not do. No critical information an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly is missing.

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 and schema coverage is effectively complete, so there is no parameter detail the description needs to add. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly focuses on output and behavior instead.

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 names a specific verb-resource pair: checking whether the DM8 database connection is normal, and lists concrete returned values (server version, instance name, current user, permission switches). It is clearly distinguished from the sibling tools, which are about schemas, tables, queries, and explains that this tool only reads metadata rather than business 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?

The description gives explicit usage guidance: call this tool first when troubleshooting 'cannot connect' or 'no write permission' errors. It also implies a when-not by stating it does not query business tables, though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for those cases.

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