list_connections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that connections are 'active' (an implicit filter), but says nothing about whether it is read-only, whether authentication is required, what the return shape is, or whether it reflects the current session versus the server globally.

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?

A single short sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no wasted words. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but structurally clean.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, this is only minimally complete: the agent knows what it lists but not what 'connection' scopes to (session vs. server), what it returns, or how it relates to connect_database/disconnect_database. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The schema is empty and there is nothing for the description to compensate for.

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 (active database connections), which is unambiguous. However it does not distinguish itself from siblings like connect_database or disconnect_database, which frame the same connection lifecycle, so an agent gets no help disambiguating scope beyond the obvious name.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all. It does not say to call this before connect_database to check for existing sessions, nor whether it requires an active connection itself. The agent must infer the purpose from the name alone.

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