connect_database

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

With no annotations, the description carries all responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits, but it provides none. It does not mention that connecting may save credentials to OS Keyring, set the operating mode, or establish a session. The schema contains these details, but the description itself adds no behavioral context, leaving the agent unaware of side effects.

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 short, which is concise, but it is under-specified for a tool with 7 parameters and significant behavioral implications. It is not a case of efficient brevity but rather missing critical information. The one-sentence description provides no value beyond the tool's name.

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?

Despite rich schema details and an output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to mention that connecting may be a prerequisite for other tools, that it could persist credentials, or that different connection modes affect behavior. The description leaves the agent without essential context about the tool's role and effects.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 7 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no param information, but since the schema does the heavy lifting, a 3 is appropriate. It does not compensate for any gaps, but none exist in the schema.

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 states the tool's action clearly: 'Connect to a database.' It uses a specific verb and resource, making it distinct from sibling tools like disconnect or execute_query. However, it does not differentiate itself further by mentioning what connecting entails, so it lacks the sibling differentiation needed for a 5.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as reconnect_saved or list_connections. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusion criteria. The description simply states what it does without context, so it fails to help the agent decide when to invoke it.

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