Datasets List Connections

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description earns credit for disclosing the auto-pagination behavior: it walks to the last page and returns entries from every page, with nextPage null / hasMore false. That is a genuine behavioral trait an agent needs to know, though it omits any note on result size caps or auth/permission scoping.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the summary_only tip follows immediately. The pagination paragraph is a bit verbose with its backticked field names, but every sentence conveys real information; nothing is padding.

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?

With an output schema present, the return-shape discussion is partly redundant but harmless. For a one-parameter read-only list tool, the description covers purpose, the key option, and pagination semantics; the only real gap is whether results are scoped to the caller's permissions or include all org connections.

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% for the single optional boolean, so the description carries the burden and does explain that summary_only=True yields a concise, token-efficient response. It stops short of saying what the summary form omits versus the full form, leaving the tradeoff ambiguous.

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 in the Sigma organization' — which clearly separates it from datasets_get_connection (single) and datasets_list_connection_grants. It does not explicitly name a sibling as an alternative, but the 'all' scope makes the distinction inferable.

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 explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative (e.g., datasets_get_connection for a single record). The only actionable guidance is the summary_only tip, which is parameter-level rather than situational.

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