get_connection_info

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: the API never returns the password, the connection string contains a `<password>` placeholder, and the server does not execute queries. It does not discuss permissions or rate limits, but it covers the key credential-handling caveats.

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 two tight sentences that front-load the returned connection data and follow with the critical password/query-execution caveats. Every sentence earns its place, with no repetition or waste.

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?

With no output schema, the description does a good job listing the returned fields and clarifying the password placeholder and CA certificate format. It is missing detail about the `workspace_id` parameter and does not describe response structure beyond the field list, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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?

There are two parameters, but schema description coverage is only 50%: `id` is documented as the database ID while `workspace_id` is undocumented. The description does not explain either parameter or compensate for the missing `workspace_id` semantics, so it adds little beyond the 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 a specific resource and return payload: connection details including address, port, engine, user name, CA certificate, and connection string. It clearly distinguishes this credential-retrieval operation from query execution by saying the server does not run queries, so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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?

Use is implied: retrieve this when you need to connect to the database yourself, and the caveat that the server does not run queries helps frame the use case. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool with siblings such as get_database or get_database_status, nor does it state when not to use it.

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