docswrite-list-connections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the scope constraint (only connections of the organization tied to this API key) and the exact response fields, including the meaning of the 'api' field (whether publishable through this server, which states, which basic options). It omits pagination behavior, result-size limits, and what happens on auth failure.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then return shape, then the routing hint. The long parenthetical platform list is slightly heavy but doubles as useful domain vocabulary for the platform filter.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and explaining the non-obvious 'api' object. With only two fully documented, optional filter parameters, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only pagination behavior is left unstated.

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 description coverage is 100% and both filters (status enum, platform string) are self-documenting there, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions status only as a returned field, not as a filter, and never explains the platform filter syntax, so it adds nothing over 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List every publishing connection') and scopes it precisely to the Docswrite organization the API key belongs to. The platform enumeration makes the resource unambiguous and clearly separates it from docswrite-list-posts and docswrite-get-post-status.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: the returned ids are to be used with docswrite-publish-post, which is the strongest possible when-to-use signal for a lookup tool. It does not state any when-not-to-use condition or mention the filtering alternatives, so it falls short of the top band.

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