mt_list_connections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool displays a list, implying it is a read-only operation, but does not specify details like whether the list is paginated, sorted, or includes all connections. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about how the tool behaves.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output format, or usage context. For a simple list tool, this might be sufficient, but it does not provide complete guidance for an agent to use it effectively in all scenarios.

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 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description does not need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description does not mislead about parameters, but it does not explicitly state 'no parameters required,' which could slightly improve clarity.

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's purpose: '登録済みのMT接続一覧を表示します' translates to 'Displays a list of registered MT connections.' This specifies the verb ('displays') and resource ('registered MT connections'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'mt_get_entry' or 'mt_list_sites,' which prevents a score of 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, such as needing existing connections to list, or suggest when to use it over other listing tools like 'mt_list_sessions' or 'mt_list_sites.' This lack of context leaves the agent without usage direction.

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