Idm List Connections

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does well: it discloses the inclusion of connections with no device behind them and the presence of link counters, which are non-obvious behaviors. It stops short of stating the read-only nature, permission requirements, or whether results are paginated.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the core capability is front-loaded and the differentiating caveat follows immediately. Every clause 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?

For a parameterless, read-only listing tool with an output schema already describing return values, the description covers purpose, scope and the key differentiator adequately. The only residual gap is the absence of any explicit read-only/auth statement, which annotations would normally provide.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering options exist and that the call returns everything the gateway holds.

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+resource ('List the gateway's physical connections') and immediately scopes it ('with link counters'). It also distinguishes itself from the device/stream siblings by noting it surfaces connections that those views cannot represent, so an agent can pick it without opening any schema.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is the right choice: when a gateway-held connection has no device behind it, the device and stream views are insufficient. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name the sibling tools by identifier, but the contextual contrast is strong enough to route correctly.

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