list_privileges

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about whether this is read-only, what permissions are needed to enumerate privileges, whether results are scoped to the connection, or what the output looks like — all of which matter for a security-sensitive privilege listing.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no wasted words and the resource is front-loaded, but the extreme brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness. It is appropriately sized only in the sense that it says almost nothing.

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 three-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves too much unstated: it does not explain how the table/database/connectionName filters combine, what is returned, or how results relate to grant_privileges and show_grants. An agent could call it, but not confidently.

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 100%, so the three optional filters (table, database, connectionName) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, default, or interaction detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a clear verb+resource ("Lista todos os privilégios"), so an agent knows this is a read/list operation over privilege objects. However, it adds no differentiation from close siblings such as show_grants, grant_privileges or revoke_privileges, and the scope phrase "do sistema" is vague about whether it means system-level privileges or all privileges across the connection.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives despite show_grants and list_users overlapping in this space. The only hint of usage is the implicit read-only nature of "Lista", which is not explicit.

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