list_connections

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

With no annotations, the description itself must carry the behavioral burden. It does convey that connections are reused to avoid connection-reference errors, which is useful, and 'List' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not describe return format, pagination, auth requirements, or any failure behavior.

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 one short sentence that front-loads the primary action and adds a relevant caveat in parentheses. No unnecessary words or repeated schema information are present.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description is mostly adequate, but it lacks return-value details and fails to disambiguate from list_connectors. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, an agent gets only a minimal picture of what the tool returns and when to prefer it over similar siblings.

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 has zero parameters, so the absence of parameter-level detail in the description is not a gap. The baseline of 4 for no parameters applies.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'List existing connections'. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the sibling list_connectors, since both cover a similar action with only a one-word difference.

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 parenthetical 're-used so no connection-reference errors' implies this tool should be used when an existing connection reference is needed to prevent errors, but no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives are given. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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