list_connections

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits fully. It states the tool returns connection IDs, names, types, status (CONNECTED/DISCONNECTED/ERROR), host info, and last tested timestamp, establishing it as a read-only listing operation. No destructive behavior is implied. It could mention permissions or caching, but the current level is adequate.

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 well-structured with clear headings, bullet points, and sections (when to use, what you get, supported types, examples, use cases). Every section contributes meaningful information. While slightly lengthy, the organization ensures agents can quickly parse key details.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description fully explains the return fields (IDs, names, types, status, host, timestamp). The tool has low complexity (one optional parameter), and the description covers all necessary context for correct invocation and interpretation. No gaps remain.

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 input schema covers the single optional parameter with a description, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds value by listing supported connection types (SAP_ERP, SALESFORCE, etc.) and providing example queries that illustrate parameter usage, such as filtering by 'SAP_ERP' or 'SALESFORCE'. This enriches the schema's meaning.

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 clearly defines the tool as listing external data source connections and their status. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'test_connection' by focusing on listing rather than testing individual connections. The verb 'list' and resource 'connections' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool, including common user queries and troubleshooting scenarios. It implicitly suggests using 'test_connection' for testing individual connections, but lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement. Nonetheless, the usage scenarios are clear and practical.

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