List Connections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the authenticated-account visibility scoping, which aligns with openWorldHint and is useful behavioral context. No contradictions exist, but the description contributes only modest value beyond the annotations.

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 13-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, states the scope, and contains zero filler. Every word earns its place, and nothing important is buried.

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 simple list tool with an output schema, full parameter documentation in the schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete. The authenticated-account scope and resource type are stated. A minor gap is the lack of detail about result ordering or pagination, but the output schema covers return shape.

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 100%, with all three optional parameters (baseUrl, profile, frontendUrl) already documented with their default-resolution chains. The description adds nothing about parameters, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('Cloudeval cloud/template connections') and a scoping qualifier ('visible to the authenticated account'). It differentiates cleanly from the sibling connections_get, which targets a single connection, and from other list tools like agent_profiles_list and projects_list by naming the resource type.

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 implies enumeration use ('List...connections visible to the authenticated account') but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as connections_get for retrieving a single connection. The agent must infer the appropriate context from sibling names and the verb.

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