List Connectors

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

Annotations provide strong safety signals (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar for behavioral disclosure is lower. The description adds the concept of 'scope capabilities' which hints at some behavioral output structure beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose return format, pagination, or whether the list is exhaustive.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('List') and resource. However, it's arguably under-specified rather than appropriately concise—one could imagine a slightly longer but more informative description.

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 listing tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description does minimal work. It conveys it lists providers but doesn't clarify what a 'provider' is in this domain, whether the list is sortable or filterable, what 'scope capabilities' means concretely, or how this differs from the closely-named 'kilango_list_connections' sibling. The domain terminology is left unexplained.

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?

There are 0 parameters, and with 100% schema coverage this is essentially a no-op dimension. Per the rubric, 0 params defaults to baseline 4. No additional parameter explanation is needed since there are no parameters to explain.

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 states the verb ('List') and resource ('providers') plus a scope qualifier ('and their scope capabilities'). However, 'providers' is ambiguous—it's unclear if this refers to connector providers, data providers, or service providers. Among siblings, 'kilango_list_connections' and 'kilango_list_connectors' are closely related, and this description does not clearly distinguish between them, making the differentiation weak.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'kilango_list_connections' or 'kilango_connect_app'. The relationship between connectors, connections, and apps is not explained. An agent cannot determine whether to reach for this tool or a sibling without additional context.

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