ecp_db_connection_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Get' and 'static' clearly signal a non-mutating, read-only operation with no side effects. It does not detail return formatting or whether credentials are included, but for a zero-parameter info retrieval tool, the safety profile is sufficiently transparent.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then adds the crucial scope qualifier. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 read-only tool, the description is complete: it states what is returned (static host/port connection info), for what scope (each database engine, this account's own container), and the absence of parameters means no invocation ambiguity. No output schema is needed for an agent to correctly select and call this tool.

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 defines zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to explain, and the description appropriately says nothing about parameters.

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 ('Get'), resource ('static host/port connection info'), and scope ('for each database engine, for apps running in this account's own container'). This clearly differentiates it from the many sibling DB tools by focusing on connection metadata rather than database operations or service status.

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 scope qualifier 'for apps running in this account's own container' provides some contextual guidance, implying it is for retrieving connection details in this environment. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., ecp_db_services_status or network port map tools), nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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