list_connectors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool lists connectors and shows connection status, which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm read-only nature or disclose other behavioral details like authentication needs or rate limits.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no extraneous information.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It is complete enough for the agent to understand its purpose.

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 no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. According to guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0-parameter tools.

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 all available connectors and their connection status, with examples (Slack, HubSpot, Stripe). It is a specific verb+resource. However, there is a sibling tool 'list_connected_integrations' which may be similar, and the description does not explicitly differentiate.

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 implies usage for viewing connectors and their status, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'list_connected_integrations'.

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