List connected agents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the connection mechanism (OAuth), concrete agent examples, and the scope exclusion that API keys are handled separately.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core identification (agents connected via OAuth) is front-loaded ahead of the scoping caveat. Every clause carries information.

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 values (connect time, last-used time) need not be restated and are correctly only gestured at. The read-only nature is well conveyed; the only gap is the absence of explicit usage routing, which is a minor shortfall for a simple list tool.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to document; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4. Nothing here misrepresents the (empty) input surface.

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 agents connected to this household) and enriches it with the connection type (OAuth sign-in) and examples (Claude, ChatGPT). It is clear, though it does not explicitly name the sibling revoke_connected_agent as its counterpart.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. The clause 'API keys are separate' implies a scope boundary (OAuth agents only) but leaves the agent to infer it rather than stating when to call this versus other tools.

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