list_mcp_server_connections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds privilege-dependent behavior (service keys see all users, user keys default to self, org admin keys must pass workspace_id) and a clear negative scope about reachability. The permissioning detail is somewhat duplicated in the schema field descriptions, so it adds emphasis rather than wholly new information.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct load (what it returns, when to use it, key-scope rules, explicit exclusion), with the core purpose front-loaded. It is dense but not padded; the key-scope sentence could be tightened slightly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and pagination/defaults are fully covered in the schema. Combined with the annotations and the description's coverage of scope, alternatives, and authorization prerequisites, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by explaining how the key scope interacts with user_id and workspace_id (defaults to the caller's own user, workspace_id mandatory for org admin keys). That is genuine semantic value for deciding which parameters to supply, though it doesn't clarify pagination fields, which the schema already handles.

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 ('List active connection records for one Portkey-managed MCP server') and enumerates the returned fields (user, connected state, timestamps). It also distinguishes itself from adjacent tools by naming disconnect_mcp_server_connection and test_mcp_server, so an agent can route correctly without opening sibling schemas.

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?

Gives concrete use cases ('audit sessions or identify the user/workspace before disconnect_mcp_server_connection') and an explicit not-for case ('does not test upstream server reachability (use test_mcp_server for that)'). It also states key-type prerequisites that gate invocation, which is exactly the when-to-use information an agent needs.

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