list_connection

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the authenticated flag's effect, the semantics of key/connection, and the date format for since/until. It says nothing about pagination behavior (limit/offset), ordering, rate limits, or auth failure modes, so transparency is partial.

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?

Three compact clauses, each carrying distinct information: what is listed, the authenticated routing rule, and the date format. No filler, and the object/connection examples are 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the description covers the meaningful semantic parameters. However, pagination via limit/offset is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving an agent without guidance on result windowing for a list operation.

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 must compensate, and it documents 5 of 7 parameters to some degree: key (example form), connection (closed value list), authenticated (effect), and since/until (accepted formats). It leaves limit and offset completely unexplained, which is a real gap for a 7-parameter tool.

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 a connection of an object') and enumerates the concrete connection values (followers, following, favorites, cloudcasts, listens) with a real key example, so the agent knows exactly what is fetched. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like search, browse, or user_shows, which also return object collections.

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?

Gives one explicit routing rule — use key='/me/' with authenticated=True for the token owner's own lists — which is genuinely useful context. Beyond that it offers no when-to-use guidance relative to alternatives such as search or browse, and no when-not-to-use conditions.

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