Get connections summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. 'Returns' clearly signals a read-only operation, and specifying a count leaves little room for unexpected side effects. It does not discuss edge cases such as pending invitations, but that is a minor gap for such a simple read.

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 sentence with no filler. The verb and key qualifier ('first-degree') are front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, this is nearly complete: an agent can call it and understand the result. It could explicitly state that the count is for the authenticated user, but that is reasonably implied by the lack of parameters.

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 there is nothing for the description to document beyond the schema. Baseline 4 applies; the description appropriately focuses on the meaning of the returned value instead.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns'), a specific resource ('first-degree connection'), and the exact output ('count'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. This clearly separates it from broader siblings like get_analytics or get_profile.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is given, but the single-purpose wording implies it should be chosen when the agent needs the numeric first-degree connection count. This is only implied, not stated.

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