list_connections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does so well: it discloses the project-layer resolution mechanism (walking up from the project dir to find .esmole.json), the global fallback to the user store, that invalid entries and broken files appear in output, and that secrets are redacted. It stops short of stating ordering, deduplication between layers, or error behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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 sentences, no redundancy, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the parenthetical path-resolution detail. Every clause adds information the agent could not get from structured fields.

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?

No output schema, params, or annotations exist, so the description must explain what comes back, and it largely does (layer name, invalid entries, broken files, redacted secrets). Slightly short of complete because the shape of an "invalid entry" or "broken file" record is left unstated.

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 is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a parameterless, whole-store listing.

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?

Specific verb plus resource ("List Elasticsearch connections") with the added dimension of which layer each connection comes from. It clearly reads as the non-mutating inventory tool among siblings like add_connection, update_connection, and remove_connection, and it is distinct from the es_* query tools.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb "List"; there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus test_connection or the es_* tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions. An agent can infer it is the discovery step before mutation, but it must do the inferring itself.

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