List Connection Profiles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it identifies the config file sources and explains that the active profile is derived from an environment variable. This enriches the agent's understanding of what the tool returns.

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?

Three concise sentences, each contributing value: what the tool lists, the specific config sources, the active profile info, and a pointer to a related sibling. No redundant content; information is front-loaded and clear.

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 simplicity (no parameters, read-only, output schema provided), the description fully covers what an agent needs: the purpose, data sources, and how to follow up with connectivity verification. The existence of an output schema means return values don't need to be explained in the description.

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 zero parameters and the input schema is empty. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description doesn't add parameter information because there are none to document, which is consistent.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it lists database connection profiles from two explicit config file paths and shows the active profile from MAGENTO_SQL_PROFILE. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_connection_status, which verifies connectivity rather than listing profiles.

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?

It explicitly recommends using get_connection_status to verify connectivity, giving clear context on when to use that alternative. While it doesn't state exclusions outright, the recommendation implies that this tool is for listing and inspecting profiles, not for checking live connection status.

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