List Connections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It reveals that only active connections are returned, which is useful, but it does not describe the output format, pagination, or any other behavioral traits.

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 extremely concise at two short sentences. Every word serves a purpose, and the key information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 simple list tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, ambiguity with the sibling 'list-integrations' tool and lack of any note about output details slightly reduce completeness.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description adds semantic value by qualifying the result as 'active' connections, which is not otherwise captured in the schema.

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 the tool lists active integration connections, with the specific resource 'active integration connections' and a clarifying purpose. It partially distinguishes from sibling 'list-integrations' by emphasizing 'already connected', but doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 phrase 'Use this to see which integrations are already connected' provides a clear use case. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use 'list-integrations' instead, leaving some ambiguity.

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