list_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 disclosing behavior. It reveals the return format (markdown) and the filter capability, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or has no side effects. The verb 'list' strongly implies safety, but a more explicit statement about behavior would strengthen transparency.

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 front-loaded with the key purpose, but contains redundancy: 'List all connections in the architecture.' and 'This tool lists all connections in the system architecture.' say the same thing. The Args/Returns structure is useful, but the repetition wastes words.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema present), the description is adequate. It identifies the resource, the filter, and the response format. It does not explain connection structure or fields, but that is presumably covered by the output schema. Minor gap: no mention of ordering or pagination, but not critical for a list tool.

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 fully documents the only parameter (component_id) with a description that matches the description text. The description adds no new meaning for that parameter, though it does mention the ctx argument for logging/error handling, which is not part of the schema. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 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 the tool lists all connections in the architecture, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_components and list_data_stores, which cover different entity types.

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 clear context: it lists all connections, with an optional component_id filter. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the resource-specific naming and filter parameter imply when to use this tool. No exclusions or edge cases are given, but the scope is unambiguous.

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