get_connections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a non-destructive read, which is useful, but nothing is said about failure modes (e.g., behavior when no document is open or pageIndex is out of range), return format, or whether it requires an open document. The primary behavior is disclosed; edge cases are not.

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 sentence with zero wasted words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It conveys purpose and output shape economically.

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 read tool with one fully-documented optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it lists and what it shows. It could briefly note the page-scoping of the pageIndex parameter, but the schema already handles that, so nothing an agent strictly needs is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the single pageIndex parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter details beyond what the schema already provides, which meets the baseline for high coverage but does not exceed it.

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') plus a concrete resource ('connectors on a page') and adds what the output shows ('which shapes they connect'). This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like get_shapes (shapes, not connectors) and connect_shapes (a creation/action tool, not a listing tool).

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 read-vs-write nature of the tool is inferable from 'List', but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. Given the large sibling set, a sentence clarifying that this only reads existing connections (as opposed to connect_shapes, which creates them) would materially help routing.

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