Inspect connections

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds useful scope detail (both incoming and outgoing edges) but says nothing about return structure, ordering, or volume, which is the remaining gap for a read/inspect tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the motivation second; every word carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

The tool is low complexity with one fully documented parameter, so the description is nearly sufficient. It is incomplete in that there is no output schema and the description never indicates what the connection listing looks like, leaving the agent to discover the response shape empirically.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including an example id format and a pointer to cavalry_list_layers to obtain ids. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb ("List") and resource ("a layer's incoming and outgoing attribute connections") with the direction scope made explicit, which an agent can act on immediately. It does not differentiate itself from the closely related siblings cavalry_connect / cavalry_disconnect, so it stops short of a 5.

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 trailing clause "to understand an existing node graph" implies the inspection use case, which is genuine guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no routing to cavalry_connect / cavalry_disconnect for the mutation counterparts an agent would likely consider next.

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