list_connections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful disclosure — that connection targets are shown without passwords ('destino sem senha') — plus pool status and active/default flags, but the rest is a field list whose behavior is already implied by the annotations and output schema.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler: the core behavior and returned attributes come first, the parameter guidance second. Nothing is repeated and each sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter read-only list tool with an output schema, the description covers what it produces, the searchable fields, and the notable exclusion of passwords. Little an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by naming which fields 'search' matches against (nome, alias, tag, descrição), which the schema does not state. That is real added meaning for the only parameter.

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 and resource ('Lista as conexões configuradas') and enumerates the attributes returned, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like use_connection or reload_connections, but the verb+resource pairing is unambiguous enough to be selectable.

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 second sentence points the agent to the 'search' parameter for filtering by name, alias, tag or description, which implies the usage context. However, it gives no guidance on when to call this versus related siblings such as reload_connections or use_connection, leaving selection to inference.

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