db_list_connections

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 only states the action 'List' without disclosing behavior like read-only nature, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The lack of any behavioral detail beyond the verb is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, compact sentence with no superfluous words. It front-loads the verb and resource, and the parenthetical detail about connection types is concise and relevant. Perfectly sized for a zero-parameter tool.

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 list tool with an output schema, the description is sufficient to understand its core purpose. It doesn't explain return values, but the output schema covers that. It could mention typical usage (e.g., 'use this to discover available connections for db_query'), but that's not essential. Overall, complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per rules. The description adds context about the connection types (RDS Postgres / MySQL), which is helpful but not parameter-specific since there are no parameters. No parameter documentation is needed.

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 a specific action (list), a resource (SQL Console connections), and the scope (in this tenant). It also specifies the connection types (RDS Postgres / MySQL), distinguishing it from sibling tools like db_query or db_describe_schema. No ambiguity.

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 doesn't mention related tools like db_query or db_list_saved, nor does it suggest prerequisites. For a simple list operation, usage might be implied, but the description doesn't help an agent decide when to invoke it over other list tools.

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