list_connector_actions

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

The description explains the input format (comma-separated connector IDs) and the output fields (name + title), but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, auth requirements, or error/rate-limit behavior. With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden, and this partial disclosure is a gap.

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 sentences: the first front-loads the purpose, the second explains the parameter and gives a use case. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with zero redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how to construct the argument, what fields are returned, and when to use it. Nothing critical is missing for correct selection and invocation.

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 schema only says the parameter is a string. The description adds essential semantics: 'comma-separated list of connector ids' with concrete examples ('slack' or 'slack,jira,google_sheets'). This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage and leaves no ambiguity.

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 ('List') and resource ('a connector's actions + triggers') and even the exact fields returned ('name + title'). It clearly differentiates from siblings by focusing on connector actions, not generic API endpoints or MCP servers.

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?

It provides an explicit when-to-use: 'Use to discover action/trigger names when wiring recipe steps.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but given no sibling tool overlaps this specific purpose, the guidance is sufficient.

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