Integrations: connections list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: what each row exposes (scope = whole project or one user; enabled flag) and the security guarantee that stored credentials are never returned.

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 tight sentences. The core purpose and returned fields come first, then the id-routing hint. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the fields returned, and it discloses the credential-hiding guarantee. Absent only pagination/ordering notes, which are minor for a typically small connection list.

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 100%, so the single 'provider' parameter is already documented in the schema and the description need not repeat it. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the description adds no filter syntax or semantics beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List your integration connections') and enumerates the returned fields (id, provider, name, scope, enabled), which is far more informative than the title. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling email_templates_list/integrations_list, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

Gives clear downstream context by naming the four tools that consume the returned id (integrations_test/enable/disable/disconnect), which tells the agent why to call this first. It stops short of stating when-not to use it versus integrations_list, so no explicit exclusion.

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