list_connections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return fields (IDs, names, types, status, host, timestamp) and lists supported connection types. It does not explicitly state the operation is read-only, nor does it mention permissions or error behavior, but the 'List' verb and status focus imply a non-mutating operation. This is a solid but not exhaustive disclosure.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence summary, then organized into scannable sections with bullets. Every section—supported types, example queries, use cases—provides distinct value. There is no fluff or repetition; the length is justified by the rich context.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what the user will get in terms of return content, lists valid connection types, and gives concrete usage examples. Nothing critical is missing for the agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema already describes the single optional parameter with examples, giving 100% coverage. The description adds value by enumerating possible connection types (SAP_ERP, SALESFORCE, etc.), which is not in the schema. This goes beyond the baseline, though the core semantics are already clear from the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb 'List' and a well-defined resource: 'all external data source connections and their current status.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like test_connection (which tests) and get_task_history (which shows task history). The purpose is unmistakable.

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 description provides an explicit 'Use this tool when' section with concrete examples like 'What data sources are connected?' and 'Checking connection health.' It also lists example queries and use cases. However, it does not include explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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