Connect Database

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool connects to a database but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this establishes a persistent session, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on failure (e.g., error handling). For a connection tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, with every part contributing to clarity.

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 a database connection tool (which involves authentication, session management, and potential errors), the description is incomplete. No annotations exist to cover safety or behavioral aspects, and there's no output schema to explain return values (e.g., success status, connection ID). The description alone fails to provide enough context for safe and effective use.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (connectionString and dialect) with descriptions and enum values. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the connectionString is used for connection, which is redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Connect to a database') and resource ('database'), specifying it uses a connection string. It distinguishes from siblings like disconnect_database or list_connections by focusing on establishing a connection. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from run_query, which might also involve connection handling.

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 list_connections (which might show existing connections) or run_query (which might handle queries without explicit connection). It lacks context on prerequisites, such as whether this is needed before other operations, or exclusions for when not to use it.

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