list_dbeaver_connections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful disclosure beyond that: it explicitly states that addresses and credentials are NOT returned, which is a meaningful data-disclosure boundary an agent cannot derive from the annotations.

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 compact sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and a semicolon-delimited exclusion clause. Every element earns its place with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden, and it does explain that each connection comes with a usable-database summary and that sensitive fields are omitted. Ordering, pagination and count details are unstated, but for a zero-parameter read listing they are minor gaps.

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 the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to document semantically. It correctly avoids inventing parameters or filter syntax that does not exist.

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 (列出) and resource (DBeaver中已有且可用的PostgreSQL连接), plus the scope (available/usable connections) and the return content (数据库摘要). An agent can tell this apart from list_databases, which enumerates databases within a connection, without opening either schema.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The implied workflow (find a connection before calling list_databases) is inferable but left to the agent, which is the definition of minimum-viable usage guidance.

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