get_connections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. The verb 'Show' indicates a read-only operation and the mention of warnings adds some insight, but it does not disclose permissions, blocking behavior, or how warnings are determined. This is partial but not full 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states what the tool does without any filler or repetition. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it 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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description must compensate by covering parameters and usage context. It only provides a high-level summary, leaving out critical details about parameters and when to use this tool, making it incomplete for effective invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description gives no explanation for any of the three parameters (group_by, database_name, include_queries). Since the schema itself only provides types/enums without descriptive labels, the tool would be difficult to invoke correctly.

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 specifies the tool's function with a strong verb ('Show') and a precise resource ('active database connections'), including specific outputs like utilization and idle-in-transaction warnings. This sets it apart from sibling tools such as connection_leak or transaction_monitor.

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 inspecting current connection state but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives like connection_leak or transaction_monitor. There are no stated exclusions or comparative context, so usage is only implicit.

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