exchange_list_receive_connectors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently indicates a listing operation and that the server parameter is optional for scoping. It does not disclose additional behavioral details such as permissions, output shape, or what happens when the server parameter is omitted, but the operation itself is low-risk and clearly read-oriented.

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 entire description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core action, the resource, and the optional scoping behavior efficiently.

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, the description is mostly adequate, but it could be more complete. It does not specify whether omitting the server returns all receive connectors, which identifier formats are accepted for the server, or what output is returned. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, a bit more context would help.

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 schema provides only a bare 'server' string with no description, so the phrase 'optionally per server' adds meaningful semantics: the parameter is optional and filters the listing to a particular server. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage for a single simple parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('Receive connectors'), and it also notes the optional server scoping. It clearly identifies the tool's function, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like exchange_list_send_connectors.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool when you need to list receive connectors, optionally scoped to a server. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over related list tools, nor any exclusion criteria.

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