get_connection_info

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

With no annotations supplied, the description must carry the behavioral burden; 'Checks' conveys a non-mutating, zero-argument read, and it discloses the categories of information returned (status, version, session). It does not address permissions/auth requirements, what happens when the connection is down or unconfigured, or any rate limits, so a moderate score is warranted.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, immediately stating the verb, the resource, and the three data points returned. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented, and the zero-parameter schema is trivially covered. For a simple read tool the description is nearly complete, missing only failure-mode behavior (e.g., error when no connection is configured) and its relationship to set_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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description correctly avoids inventing or restating arguments.

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 ('Checks') and resource (database connection) and enumerates the returned facets: connection status, Oracle version, and session details. An agent can distinguish it from set_connection (which changes state) and get_table_connections (table-scoped), though the description never states those distinctions explicitly.

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 only implied: 'Checks current ... status' suggests a read-only diagnostic call, typically before or after configuring a connection with set_connection. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so the routing decision is left to inference from the sibling list.

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