connection_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It includes a [READ] tag indicating read-only behavior and frames the tool as an early-warning indicator, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose what the return value looks like (e.g., raw numbers, percentages, or a threshold flag) or any pagination/error behavior, leaving a gap in 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 extremely concise, with a clear [READ] prefix and a substantive one-line purpose statement followed by a focused argument explanation. Every word earns its place, and the structure makes the key points immediately accessible.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description gives the core purpose and argument. However, it omits specifics about the output format or how the 'early warning' is expressed, which could leave an agent uncertain about what to expect in the result. For a monitoring tool, a brief note on the return shape would make it fully complete.

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 only shows a parameter 'target' with a null default and no description. The description adds crucial meaning: it is 'Target name from config' and 'omit for the default', which clarifies both the source and optionality. Even though schema coverage is 0%, this single parameter is fully explained, compensating for the schema's lack of detail.

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 identifies the resource 'Connection counters' and the comparison target 'max_connections', with an explicit 'early warning' purpose. It does not use a verb like 'retrieve' or 'show', but the [READ] tag and context make the action implicit. It is distinct from sibling tools focusing on queries, locks, or replication.

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 phrase 'exhaustion early warning' implies a monitoring use case, suggesting this tool is for watching connection pool exhaustion. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus other monitoring tools like lock_waits or long_running_queries, nor any exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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