list_connections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists parameters and a return type but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, mention authentication needs, or describe pagination behavior or side effects. The minimal detail is insufficient for full transparency.

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 a structured, efficient docstring. It leads with 'List connections' and then lists arguments and return type in a clean, scannable format. Every line adds value with no fluff.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. The return type 'Dict[str, Any]' gives no information about the structure of connection objects or pagination metadata. It also lacks context about what connections are or any prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 input schema is a generic wrapper with 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by naming each parameter (page, page_size, filters, sort), providing defaults for page and page_size, and explaining filter purposes. However, it does not specify types for the filters or clarify how these arguments map to the 'request' object, preventing a perfect score.

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 clearly states 'List connections' with a verb and resource, making the purpose evident. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_connection and update_connection, though it does not explicitly call out those alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_connection or update_connection. No context or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent without direction on selection.

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