current_connection

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the annotation carries the safety profile. The description adds that the read-only property reported pertains to the connection itself, not the tool, which is a useful disambiguation. It does not describe error behavior when no connection is active, which is the main remaining gap.

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 that names the three things returned. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, no redundancy.

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?

With no input parameters and no output schema, the description is the sole source of return-value information, and it does enumerate three returned items (connection, current database, read-only flag). It could go slightly further (e.g., behavior when no connection is active), but it is adequate for a trivial zero-arg read 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline of 4 applies; the sentence correctly implies no input is needed.

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 a specific verb and resource set: it shows the active connection, its current database, and its read-only status. That is clear and non-tautological. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling list_connections, leaving the agent to infer the distinction between 'current' and 'all' connections.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as list_connections or select_connection. The agent can infer that this applies to the already-selected connection, but nothing in the text confirms it or states when this tool should be preferred.

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