List connectors

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail: connectors outside the allowlist are filtered out. However, it does not explain return envelopes, ordering, pagination, or how the allowlist is determined, so the added value beyond annotations is modest.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is stated first, and the key filtering behavior is added as a second concise sentence. Every word 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?

For a zero-parameter read-only list operation, the description is complete: it states what is returned (connector names) and the main behavior (allowlist filtering). Sibling tools cover the detailed per-connector operations, so the agent has enough context to invoke this tool correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema requires no elaboration. The description correctly focuses on behavior rather than inputs, and there is nothing missing for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 connector names.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_connector_plugins and get_connector by emphasizing that it returns names only and applies allowlist filtering. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_connector, get_connector_status, or list_connector_plugins. It implies selection by virtue of the name and short description, but no exclusions or alternative routing are mentioned.

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