list_connections

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it lists connections and returns setup instructions if none exist, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state the absence of side effects, which would be beneficial.

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 concise with two purposeful sentences plus a highlighted important note. It is front-loaded with the main action and provides critical usage guidance 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 the lack of output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns (a list or setup instructions). It is complete enough for a simple listing tool, though it could optionally mention the format of the returned list.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds value by explaining why the project_root parameter is important (shared server context) beyond the schema's description. It reinforces the correct usage without redundancy.

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 all configured database connections' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes well from siblings that perform different operations like adding connections or querying tables.

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?

Includes an important note about always providing the project_root parameter with an absolute path, explaining why it's needed for multi-project server sharing. It also mentions what happens if no connections are found, but lacks explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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