list_cms_connections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real value: it discloses that credentials and webhook secrets are excluded from the response and names the required permission (cms:manage). Nothing is said about pagination or ordering, which keeps it from a 5.

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 clause pair with zero waste, front-loading the operation and following immediately with the security caveat and permission requirement.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with an output schema available, the description covers purpose, permission requirement and the key output restriction. It does not specify ordering or whether results span all connections in the project, a minor remaining gap.

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?

There is one required parameter (project_id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema alone is unhelpful. The description implies project scoping via 'project CMS connections' and the cms:manage permission, but never explains the project_id argument itself; with a single self-descriptive 'Project Id' title, this lands at a baseline 3.

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 (List) and resource (project CMS connections), which cleanly distinguishes it from create_cms_connection, test_cms_connection and delete_cms_connection in the sibling set. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 prerequisite 'requires cms:manage' signals the permission context, and the read-only framing implies this is the inspection step before create/test/delete, but no when-to-use or alternative routing is stated. Usage is only implied.

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