list_connections

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds a useful behavioral detail beyond those annotations: the list includes connection profiles added during the session, which indicates a dynamic, session-scoped result set. No contradictions exist.

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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the important session-scoping qualifier. Every part of the sentence contributes meaning, with no repetition or filler.

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 operation, this description is complete. It states what is listed (connection profiles), the purpose (available to switch to), and a key dynamic nuance (session-added profiles). Safety and open-world semantics are already captured by annotations, so nothing critical is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. The description accurately focuses on what is returned rather than on inputs, which is the appropriate choice for a parameterless tool.

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 starts with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('connection profiles'), and adds the clarifying phrase 'available to switch to,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like current_connection or list_tables. It is immediately clear what this tool does and what kind of objects it returns.

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 phrase 'available to switch to' implies this tool is meant to be used before selecting a connection, making the use case reasonably clear. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like use_connection or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full guidance.

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