List Connections

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating read operation. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that 'Secrets are never returned', which is value beyond the annotations. With annotations covering the safety profile comprehensively, the description's additional disclosure of the no-secrets behavior is adequate but not extensive.

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 two short sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose with precise scope, and the second sentence adds one critical behavioral caveat (no secrets). Every word earns its place.

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 comprehensive annotations, the description covers the essential scope (workspace-level, one per provider) and a critical caveat (secrets never returned). While it could mention return format or ordering, the simplicity of the tool means little more is needed. The lack of an output schema is somewhat compensated by the 'one per provider' and 'secrets never returned' details.

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?

With zero parameters, the input schema requires no additional documentation. The description meaningfully clarifies the result scope by noting 'one per provider' and that secrets are excluded, which compensates for the absence of an output schema. There is nothing more the description needs to explain about parameters since there are none.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('the workspace's backend connections') and adds the 'one per provider' scoping detail, which distinguishes it from related list tools like kilango_list_connectors and kilango_list_portals. It clearly defines the scope as workspace-level and backend connections, which helps differentiate from sibling tools.

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 context ('the workspace's backend connections') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like kilango_list_connectors, kilango_get_connection, or kilango_list_app_installations. There are no when-not-to-use exclusions or named alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the 'one per provider' scoping detail.

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