list_connections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly promises 'without secrets', which is a critical safety guarantee for an agent handling sensitive data. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or free of side effects, though 'list' implies this.

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, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy.

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 params, straightforward listing) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It covers the key behavioral guarantee about secrets, though a brief mention of what 'adapter capabilities' entails could make it fully 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description has no need to explain parameter syntax or semantics. Per the baseline for 0 params, the score is 4.

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 uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('configured connections and adapter capabilities'), clearly distinguishing it as a listing operation. The qualifier 'without secrets' adds specificity about security behavior, setting it apart from potential sibling tools that might fetch connection details.

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 usage when an agent needs to enumerate configured connections or capabilities, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_connection_capabilities or test_connection. No exclusions or alternative scenarios are mentioned.

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