Datasets List Connections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and scope profile is covered. The description does add one piece of behavioral value not in the annotations: that summary_only yields a concise, token-efficient response, which matters for a potentially large org-wide listing. It says nothing about pagination or result size limits, so it is useful but not rich.

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 short sentences with no filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the parameter tip follows. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be described, and the tool has a single optional parameter. The description covers purpose and the parameter's effect, leaving only pagination or result-size expectations unstated for what is an org-wide listing.

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 schema documents only the name, type and default of summary_only. The description compensates partially by explaining the effect of setting it to True (concise, token-efficient response), but does not describe what the full response contains or when the verbose form is needed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List all connections") plus the scope ("in the Sigma organization"), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not name or distinguish itself from near siblings such as datasets_get_connection or datasets_list_connection_grants, so the agent must infer the boundary from the names alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. The only routing hint is implicit in "all connections" versus the singular get_connection sibling. An agent gets no explicit signal about when this list is preferable to the grants or per-connection tools.

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