db_get_connection_pool

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 only states the tool 'gets' information, implying a read operation, but does not mention permissions, side effects, rate limits, or the nature of the returned data beyond a vague 'connection pool information'. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotation support.

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 concise and well-structured with clear 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections. It avoids unnecessary fluff and conveys the essential purpose and parameters in a compact format. The structure aids readability and quick comprehension.

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 simple get tool with two parameters, the description covers the basics but leaves gaps. It does not specify what 'connection pool information' includes (e.g., configuration, usage stats, status), though the presence of an output schema (per context) mitigates this. It also lacks any mention of prerequisites or error conditions. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It provides brief explanations: 'database_id: The database ID or label' and 'pool_name: The connection pool name'. This adds some semantic value beyond the schema's bare type declarations, though the explanations are shallow and lack examples or format details.

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 function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('information about a connection pool'). It is not a tautology and effectively distinguishes this from siblings like db_list_connection_pools (which lists pools) and db_create_connection_pool (which creates pools). An agent can immediately understand what this tool does.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or conditions that would select this over db_list_connection_pools or other related tools. The use case (fetching details for a specific pool) is implied by the parameters but never explicitly stated.

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