list_connections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value: no passwords are returned and the active connection affects all tools and apps. That is behavioral context an agent cannot get from the annotation alone.

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?

Sentence one front-loads the action and its output constraints; the following two sentences each add distinct context (the significance of 'active' and where management lives). No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format detail is unnecessary, and the description covers scope, semantics of the active flag, and the sibling for management. Only minor edge behavior (e.g., empty connection list) is unaddressed.

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, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Schema coverage of 100% means no compensating detail is needed.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (saved SingleStore connections) and adds meaningful scope: passwords are excluded and the active connection is flagged. It is clearly distinguishable from mutation siblings like connection_activate/connection_save, though it never directly contrasts itself with the close-named connections_state.

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?

Routes the agent: this tool is for reading the connection list, while management happens in the Connections window (connections_window tool or the Connect view). That gives a clear division of labor, but there are no explicit when-not conditions or a named alternative for related reads like connections_state.

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