List Connections

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true) indicate a safe, read-only operation. The description adds that 'Filters are applied client-side,' which is crucial behavioral context not present in annotations, informing the agent about performance and data handling.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that cover purpose, source, filter behavior, and use case. Every word serves a purpose; 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 5 parameters, all documented in schema, and no output schema, the description covers the main function and filter behavior. It does not specify the return format (e.g., list of objects with fields), but for a simple list tool with read-only hints, this is reasonably 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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds limited value beyond the schema, only mentioning that filters are client-side, which is a general observation. No specific parameter meanings are elaborated beyond what's in 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 clearly states the action (list) and the resource (active connection tracking entries from the router firewall table). This distinguishes it from many sibling list_* tools that target different resources (e.g., list_firewall_rules, list_interfaces).

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 mentions the tool is 'useful for diagnosing NAT and firewall behavior,' providing a clear use case. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context is adequate given the sibling list of many specialized tools.

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