list_connections

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

Without annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It explicitly states that it flags duplicate names and returns nothing sensitive (no DSN, no credentials), which adds valuable safety context beyond the basic listing functionality.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose and covers critical behavioral details efficiently.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return fields and sensitive data exclusion. It avoids the need for output schema documentation. However, it omits potential pagination or limits for large tenant lists, which is minor.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter info as none exist, and the schema coverage is 100%.

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 tool lists every database connection for the tenant and specifies the returned fields (name, id, dbType, createdAt). It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning flags for duplicate names and that it returns no sensitive data, which is unique among the sibling tools.

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 implies usage for viewing connections but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like test_connection or analyze_table. No guidance on when not to use it is provided, though the tool's simplicity (read-only listing) makes context clear.

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