list_connectors

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds meaningful operational context: results are capped by `limit` and a `truncated` flag means the list is incomplete. It does not explain how to retrieve additional results, but the truncation warning is valuable beyond the annotations.

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 three efficient sentences: purpose and return fields first, then usage context, then the truncation caveat. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool with an output schema and full schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context: what it lists, when to use it, and how to interpret truncated results. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% and the `limit` parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds semantic value by explaining the consequence of `limit` and how the `truncated` result should be interpreted, going beyond the raw parameter definition.

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 a specific verb and resource (list connectors) and enumerates the fields returned, so an agent can understand what it does without opening the schema. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_remote_networks or list_devices, but the resource name is distinct enough for clear selection.

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?

It explicitly says to use the tool to check connector health, giving a clear usage context. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, which keeps it below the top score.

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