connections_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It goes beyond a simple statement by explaining the return type (list of connection objects), the empty-list meaning, and the underlying mihomo detail ({connections: null} on idle). This adds useful behavioral context beyond a mere read hint.

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 short sentences—one for purpose, one for edge-case behavior. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the core action.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool without an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the return value, the field list, and the empty-case behavior. This is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it adds value by describing return behavior, earning the baseline 4 for no-param tools.

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 it lists active connections and enumerates the included fields (source ip, host, rule, chains, upload, download). This specific verb+resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools that manage proxies or providers.

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 description—it's the tool to call when you need active connection details. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool's name and sibling set.

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