list-connections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It implies a read-only list operation but does not mention any potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination. The simple nature of listing connections mitigates some concerns, but more transparency would improve the score.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then provide a usage hint. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essential purpose and usage. The first sentence lists return fields, which partially compensates for the lack of an output schema. However, it could mention the return type or any pagination behavior for completeness.

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% for the single optional parameter 'environment', which already has a description. The tool description does not add additional semantic information about the parameter beyond what is in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it lists connector connections and specifies the fields returned (id, connector, display name, status). While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling list tools like list-flows, the resource is uniquely identified, making purpose clear.

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 explicitly says to use the ids for create-flow / update-flow and provides a concrete example (shared_office365 connection). This gives clear guidance on when and why to use this tool.

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