hydra_list_connectors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by warning that unsupported types (S3, BigQuery, Snowflake) fail at run time, which tells the agent why consulting this list matters.

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 lead with the primary purpose and follow with only the critical caveat. Every clause earns its place; no filler or 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?

For a zero-parameter read-only list tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers purpose and important edge behavior. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke this tool correctly 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so baseline is 4 by rubric. There is no parameter information to add; the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 ('List') and resource ('connector types accepted by the 'type' key of a source or a destination'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools such as hydra_list_operations and hydra_list_jobs. The additional unsupported types reinforce what the tool is about and avoid confusion with connector management.

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?

Clear context is given: the tool is for discovering valid values of the 'type' key on sources/destinations. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but sibling tools differ by resource (operations, actions, jobs, workflows), so the usage context is reasonably unambiguous. The warning about unsupported types provides a practical usage caution.

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