List connectors

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it explains why permissions can become stale (granted set is frozen into the token at consent time), that retries or waiting cannot fix it, and that the remedy is a browser reconnection under Workspace > Connectors.

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?

Front-loads the main purpose, then adds the diagnostic flag and remediation detail. Every sentence carries useful context, but the description is longer than necessary for a zero-parameter list tool and uses emphatic all-caps phrasing that could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

With no output schema and only safety annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining return contents and behavior. It lists what the caller sees (provider, status, connected account label, available providers) and explains the stale-permission flag, its cause, and the fix, so an agent has enough context to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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 has zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter semantics to explain. The schema is empty and fully covered, and the description does not need to compensate for any undocumented inputs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — listing third-party accounts connected to the workspace — plus available providers and an out-of-date permission flag. Clear enough to distinguish from most siblings, but it never names or contrasts with the closely related list_connector_accounts tool, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.

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?

Provides a concrete diagnostic trigger: 'Check this FIRST when a connected provider starts refusing things.' This tells the agent when the tool is especially useful. However, it does not state when not to use it or explicitly route to an alternative such as list_connector_accounts or connect_connector.

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