Connection capabilities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It does add meaningful context by explaining that availability depends on 'token scopes plus server policy' and that this is a read-only capability check ('Shows'). However, it does not describe the output shape, error behavior, or what happens when the connection is invalid.

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 sentences with no filler. The core behavior is stated first, and the usage directive is appended immediately. Every sentence 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 one-parameter introspection tool, the description gives enough to call it correctly: what it returns conceptually, the scope, and when to call it. An explicit mention of the expected output format would improve completeness, but it is largely sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It only references 'this connection,' which roughly maps to connection_id, and the single parameter is self-explanatory as a UUID and name. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema but does not create confusion.

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 identifies a specific action ('Shows which data categories are actually available') and a specific resource ('for this connection'). It also distinguishes the tool from the marketplace-specific siblings by explaining that it reveals available capabilities rather than directly operating on marketplace data.

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 instruction 'Call before using the marketplace-specific tools' gives an explicit, actionable usage context. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the timing guidance is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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