anythingmcp_list_connectors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only, no side effects' mostly restates them. The description does add value beyond the structured data by disclosing the return shape — a plain-text catalog grouped by category with a link to the full list — which tells the agent what to expect from the response.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the safety profile and the core action statement. The enumerated category list is somewhat bulky but does set expectations about catalog breadth, so it largely earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return-value information, and it does: plain-text format, grouping by category, and a pointer to the full list. What remains unsaid is whether the catalog is paginated or truncated, a minor gap for a zero-parameter read.

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 to disambiguate and the schema is fully covered. Baseline of 4 applies; no further parameter explanation is possible or needed.

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?

Specific verb + resource ('list connectors') with the exact scope quantified: 543 pre-built connectors grouped by category plus 5 no-code connector types. An agent can immediately distinguish this discovery tool from anythingmcp_connect_client, which it names as the downstream action.

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 final sentence gives explicit guidance: 'Use this to discover available integrations before connecting a client,' which establishes the correct ordering relative to connect_client. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when NOT to use it (e.g., when the connector is already known).

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