list_connections

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Return all active SQL connections') but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or safe. Missing information on authorization requirements, rate limits, or whether the output is filtered by current user permissions.

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: a one-line summary plus an Args block listing two parameters. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the Args block uses a non-standard format (Args: indentation) and could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) for readability.

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 presence of an output schema (context signals indicate 'Has output schema: true'), the description does not need to explain return values. It adequately states what the tool does and the required inputs. However, it is incomplete in terms of behavioral context and usage guidelines, which are absent.

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 schema only provides titles and types for workspace and item, with no descriptions. The description adds 'Workspace name or GUID' and 'Warehouse or SQL Analytics Endpoint name or GUID,' clarifying the parameter values beyond the schema. This is valuable context not present in the input schema.

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 states 'Return all active SQL connections on a warehouse or SQL Analytics Endpoint,' which clearly identifies the verb (return) and resource (active SQL connections) and scope (on a specific warehouse/endpoint). However, it does not differentiate from sibling list tools like list_sql_endpoints or list_warehouses, which are distinct but similar in pattern.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context for using workspace and item parameters, or any exclusions. Sibling tools like list_sql_endpoints list logical entities, while this lists connections, but no comparative advice is given.

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