hb_conn_list

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full disclosure burden but says nothing about return shape, pagination, filtering scope, or whether listing triggers any side effects. A read-only enumeration is implied by 'List' but never confirmed.

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?

A single three-word phrase with no waste is well front-loaded, though it is arguably under-specified rather than concise. It earns its place but adds little beyond the tool name.

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 list tool with no output schema the description is minimally viable, but an agent still lacks any sense of what a connector record contains or how results are scoped. It does not misuse complexity, but it leaves obvious questions open.

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 semantics to explain beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 4 applies for a parameterless definition.

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 gives a specific verb (List) and resource (configured connectors), so an agent can tell it apart from the action-oriented siblings hb_conn_send/hb_conn_receive and even the state-oriented hb_conn_status. It stops short of clarifying what a 'connector' is or what fields are returned, so it is clear but not fully disambiguating.

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 statement of when to call this versus hb_conn_status or the other conn_* siblings. The agent must infer that this is the enumeration entry point for connectors purely from the name.

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