db-oauth-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it returns specific data (name, engine type, accessible databases), explains how output is used by other tools, and warns about authentication triggering. It doesn't mention error handling or rate limits, but covers essential operational aspects.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: purpose statement, output details, and behavioral note. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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?

For a 0-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good completeness: explains what it does, what it returns, how output is used, and authentication behavior. It could potentially detail the exact return format structure, but given the tool's simplicity, it's largely complete.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline would be 4. The description appropriately explains there are no parameters needed for this listing operation, which aligns perfectly with the empty input schema.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('database connections available in the current session'). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning which tools use its output (query_database, list_schema), making it distinct from connection_status and disconnect.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: to get connection names for passing to query_database/list_schema via the connection argument. It also indicates when it triggers authentication ('if not yet connected'), helping users understand prerequisites.

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