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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It meaningfully discloses that auth tokens are never returned, only whether one is set, which is important context for an agent invoking the tool. It does not mention pagination or output shape, but for a simple list operation this is acceptable.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action and scope, and the second adds a critical safety-relevant caveat about auth tokens.

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?

The tool is low-complexity: one required parameter, no nested objects, and no output schema. The description covers purpose plus the most important behavioral caveat about secrets. It does not enumerate the full response fields, but that is not a critical omission given the simple nature of the tool.

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 only parameter, projectKey, is already fully described in the schema with an example ('UK'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: 'List the external MCP connections configured for a project.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like upsert_mcp_connection and list_credentials, so an agent knows exactly what resource is being read.

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 'configured for a project' implies the tool is for retrieving existing MCP connections for a given projectKey. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related tools like list_credentials or upsert_mcp_connection, nor does it give exclusions for 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.