list_project_connector_accounts

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: Lightbulb enforces tenant, selected-company, project access, and RBAC; OAuth connection IDs, credentials, tokens, and unexpected server fields are never returned; rows are deterministically sorted. This is valuable context an agent needs before calling.

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?

Purpose leads, followed by downstream usage, security/sanitization context, and compact parameter documentation. Every sentence contributes value and there is no redundant padding.

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 description covers purpose, downstream usage, security behavior, pagination semantics, and all parameter meanings. Since an output schema exists, not restating the full return structure is acceptable, and the connector_account_ref mention ties the tool into the broader invocation workflow.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the Args section fully compensates by explaining each parameter: project_id as an authenticated Project UUID, provider as an exact filter with an example, offset as zero-based into deterministic sorted rows, and limit with a 1-40 range. This adds real meaning beyond the bare 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 states a specific verb and resource: listing sanitized connector account aliases bound to one accessible project. This clearly conveys what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate against sibling tools like list_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 description gives clear downstream usage context: the returned connector_account_ref should be used with generated connector tools and invoke_tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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