connections_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile needs no repetition. The description's real contribution is telling the agent what information surfaces (protocol versions, granted capabilities), which matters for a discoverability tool, but it says nothing about whether it reflects live state, requires an existing connection, or costs a round trip.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every listed item (table, connections, protocol versions, capabilities) carries information about the result set. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the job of describing what comes back and does so by naming the four returned categories. For a zero-argument read-only status tool with rich annotations, that is close to sufficient; only the shape/nesting of the response is left unknown.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The enumeration of returned categories is a small bonus for an agent deciding whether the call answers its question.

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 verb 'Show' plus an enumerated set of resources (active table, connections, protocol versions, granted capabilities) tells an agent exactly what this returns, which is more specific than a generic 'status' tool. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like auth_status or state_read, but the named fields (protocol versions, granted capabilities) do imply a different payload.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the phrase 'granted capabilities' and 'connections' suggests a diagnostic/health-check call after connecting or when auth seems wrong. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no pointer to auth_status or tables_list as alternatives, so the agent must infer the trigger.

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