list_connections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'List all available' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the output takes (e.g., list of names vs. full objects), or if there are any rate limits or performance considerations. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loaded with the essential information.

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 low complexity (single optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details (like output format or authentication needs) and usage guidance relative to siblings. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'includeDetails' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation through the schema alone.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all available DBeaver database connections'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_connection_info' or 'test_connection' that also deal with connections, missing an opportunity for sibling differentiation.

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. With sibling tools like 'get_connection_info' (which might retrieve details for a specific connection) and 'test_connection' (which might verify connectivity), there's no indication of when 'list_connections' is appropriate versus these other tools.

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