list_connectors

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds the specific metadata fields returned, which is useful, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination, volume limits, or dependencies. With annotation coverage, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and the scope of data with no redundant words. The field list is compact and informative.

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 simple read-only list operation, the description combined with the fully documented schema and output schema is sufficient. It does not explicitly mention model/workspace scoping, but the schema covers that; minor gap remains about the overall return set size or pagination behavior.

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?

Both parameters (model_id and workspace_id) have full schema descriptions, giving 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it rests at the baseline.

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') and a clear resource ('connector metadata'), and enumerates the metadata fields (uid, endpoints, angle, routing lock/points), which distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_variables and list_modules.

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 only states what the tool does; it provides no guidance on when to use it instead of alternatives like add_connector, set_connector_routing, or sync_connectors_from_equations. No context or exclusions are provided, so usage is entirely implied.

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