db-oauth-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does (shows connection status and details) but does not mention potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error behaviors. It adequately covers the core functionality but lacks deeper behavioral context for a tool that might involve system state queries.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action ('show') and details the key outputs, making it easy to understand quickly with zero waste.

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 has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a clear purpose but lacks information on output format (e.g., structure of returned data), error handling, or dependencies. For a status-checking tool, this leaves gaps in understanding how to interpret results, making it minimally adequate but incomplete for full contextual use.

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 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description does not need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and it correctly indicates no input is required. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it aligns with the parameterless nature.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('show') and resources ('connection status', 'available database connections'), detailing what information is provided (connected status, user, engine, expiration). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_connections' by focusing on status details rather than just listing connections.

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 context by mentioning 'available database connections' and status checking, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_connections' or 'disconnect'. It provides some guidance through the information it reveals, but lacks explicit when/when-not directives or named alternatives.

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