list_connections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds that it returns configured connections plus the active one, which is useful context, but it discloses no further behavioral traits like error conditions or auth requirements. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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-formed sentence that front-loads the resource and adds the active-connection detail without any filler. Nothing can be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 no-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description covers what is listed and mentions the active connection. It is nearly complete; only minor details (e.g., exact per-connection fields or ordering) are absent, and no output schema exists to cover them.

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 no per-parameter semantics to document. Per the rubric, zero parameters establishes a baseline of 4, and schema coverage is 100% with an empty property set.

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?

States a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('conexiones MySQL configuradas') plus what else is returned ('cuál está activa'). This is clear and specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the overlapping sibling 'current_connection', leaving some potential ambiguity.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to alternatives such as 'current_connection' or 'select_connection'. The intended usage is inferable from the purpose, but nothing in the text helps an agent choose between these closely related tools.

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