list_connections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds value by clarifying it lists ALL connections of the tenant and reveals the return fields, but it does not discuss potential large result sets or pagination behavior, which would be relevant for a listing 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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose, lists return fields, and provides a practical usage hint with zero redundancy. Every part earns its place.

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 simplicity—no output schema, two optional boolean filters—the description covers the key information: scope, return fields, and a usage example. It lacks mention of pagination or handling of large lists, but for a straightforward listing tool with annotated safety, this is nearly complete.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters (active_only, include_deleted) fully documented in the schema. The description does not expand on parameter behavior beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 applies; the connection_id hint is not parameter-related.

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 (Lista) and resource (conexões de banco de dados) with a tenant scope. It lists the returned fields (id, nome, provider, status) and even explains the downstream use of id, effectively distinguishing it from the singular get_connection tool.

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 a clear purpose—listing all tenant database connections—and adds a specific usage hint (use id as connection_id in create_schema). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_connection or mention when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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