db_list_connection_pools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it returns a list of connection pools but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires specific permissions, handles missing databases, or any pagination behavior. For a simple list tool, this is minimal but acceptable; however, it fails to explicitly confirm safety or non-mutating nature.

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 extremely concise, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a clear Args/Returns structure. Every sentence is informative, with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, output schema available), the description covers the essential usage. It does not mention edge cases like errors or pagination, but those are minor for a list operation. The presence of an output schema compensates for the lack of return-format details.

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 description adds critical meaning to the single parameter, clarifying that database_id can be either an ID or a label, which is not evident from the schema (which only defines it as a string). With 0% schema description coverage, this fully compensates for the lack of schema detail.

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 action (list) and resource (connection pools) for a managed database, using the parameter database_id to scope it. It distinguishes from sibling tools like db_get_connection_pool (which fetches a single pool) and db_create_connection_pool (which creates one) by indicating a list operation.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as db_get_connection_pool or db_list_databases. The usage is implied by the name and description, but there is no mention of exclusions or scenarios where a different tool would be preferred.

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