List Connections

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, and the description adds a valuable behavioral detail: passwords are redacted from URIs. This provides extra transparency beyond the annotation and helps set expectations for the returned data.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every sentence adds value (scope, filter, security note). No wordiness or redundant details.

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?

With a single optional parameter and an output schema present, the description covers the essential aspects: what is listed, optional filtering, and a security concern. It is complete for this simple read-only tool.

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 input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description compensates by explaining the 'provider' parameter with concrete examples like 'postgres', 'ogr', 'spatialite'. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema definition.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'data source connections saved in QGIS' with the context of Browser panel entries. It also names several example providers, making it clear this tool lists connections rather than tables or other entities, distinguishing it from siblings like list_connection_tables.

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 clearly implies the tool is for viewing saved connections and optionally filtering by provider, which provides enough context for an agent to decide when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the intent is unambiguous.

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