check_database_connections

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

The verb 'check' implies a read-only operation, and the restore context hints at the purpose. But with no annotations, the description carries full burden and does not disclose output format, whether it disconnects anything, or permission requirements. It adds some value but lacks rich behavioral context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple read-only check with one thoroughly documented optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and primary use case. It lacks output details, but the tool's simplicity and schema coverage mitigate the gap, making it reasonably complete.

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 only parameter databaseName is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage, including default behavior ('default: all databases'). The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 checks active connections to a database, with a specific verb ('check') and resource ('active connections to a database'). The parenthetical '(useful before restore)' provides a distinct use case, and it differentiates from sibling tools like disconnect_database_users and kill_database_sessions by being a read-only check.

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 explicitly indicates when to use the tool ('useful before restore'), giving clear context. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it does not fully meet the 5-level bar for explicit when/when-not/alternatives.

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