list_connections

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries real added weight: it discloses the grouping/ordering behavior and, critically, the return envelope with a 'truncated' flag plus an explicit warning not to treat a truncated result as complete. That is decision-relevant behavior an agent could not derive from the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then cleanly split into Args and Returns sections with no filler. Slightly more boilerplate than strictly necessary, but every sentence carries information.

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 helpfully documents the response envelope and truncation semantics, which covers the main gap. One minor loose end: the envelope reports a 'limit' field but the tool exposes no way to set that limit, so the agent cannot tell whether truncation is controllable.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single 'target' parameter, and it does: it explains the value comes from config and that omitting it selects the default. Full meaning is conveyed, though no example values are given.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Client connections') and adds meaningful scope detail ('grouped by peer host, busiest first') plus a [READ] marker. It is clearly distinguishable from resource-different siblings like list_queues or list_channels, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with the closest sibling, connection_churn_analysis.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource name and the [READ] tag, and the Args note tells the agent how to pick a target, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as connection_churn_analysis.

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