connect_db

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not say whether the connection is persistent or per-call, whether credentials are stored, how failures surface, or what the tool returns (there is no output schema either).

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. Its brevity is efficient, though it is arguably terse to the point of under-informing.

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 credential-bearing connection tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete: no return value, no error behavior, no lifecycle semantics, and no relation to the sibling execution tools. The fully documented schema is the only reason this is not a 1.

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%, including the port default of 5432, so the schema fully documents all five parameters. The description adds no syntax, format, or connection-string semantics beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 (Connect) and resource (PostgreSQL database), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like execute, query, or validate_sql, so an agent cannot tell from the description whether a connection must be established first or is implicit.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling database tools (query, execute, list_schemas). No mention of prerequisites, whether this must precede other calls, or how long the connection persists.

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