get_active_connections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List') and return value ('Active sessions on the cluster'), but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, whether it's read-only or has side effects, or how the data is formatted. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated clearly in the first sentence and a brief return value note. There is no wasted text, and every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy.

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 tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, but for a monitoring tool with potential behavioral nuances (e.g., permissions, side effects), it should provide more context. Without annotations or output schema, the description does the bare minimum to be functional.

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 has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately avoids unnecessary details. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it efficiently handles the lack of inputs.

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's purpose with 'List active connections/sessions to the current database,' which includes a specific verb ('List') and resource ('active connections/sessions'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_connection_status' (which might check a single connection) and 'show_running_queries' (which focuses on queries rather than sessions). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'get_cluster_status' which might overlap in scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit instructions on prerequisites, timing, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_connection_status' or 'show_running_queries.' The context is implied (monitoring active sessions), but no exclusions or specific use cases are mentioned.

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