List EMQX Connectors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns connector connection health and explains that the list may be empty on OSS due to enterprise licensing. This goes beyond the structured metadata.

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?

Two short sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds essential caveat about OSS. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter list tool with rich annotations and an output schema present, the description covers the essential points: what is listed, what health info is included, and a critical usage caveat (OSS vs enterprise). No further context is needed for a tool of this simplicity.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description correctly omits parameter details since there are none to document.

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 title 'List EMQX Connectors' clearly states the action and resource, and the description adds specificity by mentioning 'data-integration connectors and their connection health'. However, the description itself is a noun phrase rather than a verb phrase, and it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling list tools like emqx_list_actions or emqx_list_clients, though the focus on connectors is distinct enough.

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 provides useful context for when to use the tool and how to interpret results: it explains that open-source EMQX ships only HTTP and MQTT connectors, so an empty list is normal on OSS. This sets expectations clearly, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to other list tools.

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