db_connect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it establishes a database connection, supports specific DSN formats (PostgreSQL, SQLite, MySQL), and returns a connection_id for reuse. However, it lacks details on error handling, timeouts, authentication requirements, or rate limits, which are important for a connection tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a bulleted list of DSN formats and a note on the return value. Every sentence earns its place by providing necessary information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (a foundational connection tool with 1 parameter), no annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, parameter details, and return value, but could improve by mentioning error cases or connection lifecycle management. The output schema likely handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain them further.

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 0% description coverage and only one parameter (dsn) with no schema-level details. The description compensates fully by explaining the dsn parameter's semantics: it lists supported DSN formats with examples (e.g., postgresql://user:pass@host/db), adding crucial meaning beyond the bare schema. This is essential for correct tool invocation.

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 purpose: 'Connect to a database.' It specifies the action (connect) and resource (database), but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like db_backup or db_restore, which might also involve database connections indirectly. The mention of returning a connection_id hints at its foundational role, but sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 implies usage by stating it 'Returns a connection_id used by all other tools,' suggesting it should be invoked first to enable other database operations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., no mention of prerequisites or exclusions), nor does it name specific sibling tools as alternatives for connection-related tasks.

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