status

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 'Show connection info', without mentioning side effects (likely none) or any behavioral traits. For a simple status tool, this is minimal disclosure; it does not explicitly confirm read-only or safe operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose.

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 has no parameters and an output schema exists (which the description is not required to detail), the description adequately lists the information shown. It is complete for a simple status tool, though it could mention that it is a read-only operation.

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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the guidelines, a baseline of 4 is applied since no parameter info is needed; the description does not add parameter semantics beyond the empty 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 clearly states the tool shows connection info, listing specific attributes (type, host, database, mode, status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'describe', 'execute', 'list_tables', and 'query', which serve different purposes.

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 the tool is for retrieving connection details but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit usage boundaries.

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