dialect_list

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

The description implies a read-only operation by stating it lists dialects, but since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, but the nature of the tool (listing) makes this clear. A score of 4 is appropriate as it is transparent enough for safe use.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and return value. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no extraneous information.

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 that there are no parameters, no output schema, and the tool is simple, the description fully explains what the tool does and what it returns (dialect name, default port, execution-plan format). It is complete for an agent to understand its 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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, and it correctly reflects the tool's behavior without parameters.

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 ('list'), the resource ('database dialects'), and the specific return fields (name, default port, execution-plan format). It effectively distinguishes this tool from the sibling tools, which deal with connections, queries, and tunnels.

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 explicitly states what the tool does but does not provide guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. The usage is implied (e.g., before configuring a connection), but no explicit when-not or exclusion criteria are given.

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