List Capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing: "List" implies a safe read, but there is no mention of scope, permissions, or whether results are filtered by connected accounts. The output schema covers the return shape, so that gap is excused, but the behavioral profile is still essentially undocumented.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, appropriately sized for a zero-argument listing tool. It is terse to the point of under-specification, which costs it the top score.

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?

The tool is simple, takes no arguments, and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, with no annotations at all, the description should at least confirm this is a read-only, account-scoped discovery call; that remains unsaid.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a no-arg tool.

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 verb+resource pair ("List connector capabilities and their tools") is clear enough, but "capabilities" is undefined vocabulary and nothing distinguishes this from siblings like health or describe_tool. An agent knows it enumerates something, but not exactly what a "capability" is or how the answer differs from a tool description lookup.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus describe_tool, health, or audit.status, all of which plausibly answer adjacent discovery questions. The agent must infer the use case purely from the name.

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