get_database_connections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it retrieves information (implying read-only), but doesn't specify permissions needed, rate limits, or what 'active' means (e.g., time thresholds). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that accesses system-level data.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the specific source ('pg_stat_activity'), making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the complexity of accessing database connections (a system-level operation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., connection details, query states), security implications, or how to interpret results, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the input structure. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies no inputs are required, earning a baseline high score for this context.

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 clearly states the verb ('retrieves') and resource ('information about active database connections from pg_stat_activity'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_database_stats' or 'list_tables', which prevents a perfect score.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_database_stats' or 'execute_sql'. It lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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