system_get_user_connections

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

No annotations are provided, but the description discloses the return format (service name as key, connection ID as value) and that it only returns data for the authorized user. It does not mention any destructive actions or auth requirements, but the read-only nature is inferred.

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 overly verbose with repeated information (e.g., 'Common connections include:' list, 'This is useful for:' list, 'Common use cases:' list). It could be more concise while retaining key details.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a complete picture: the tool's purpose, return structure, examples of services, and use cases. It compensates well for missing structured fields.

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 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline score for 0 parameters is 4.

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 the tool returns all user connections for the authorized user, specifying the verb 'Get' and the resource 'user connections'. It distinguishes itself from sibling system_* tools by focusing on external service integrations.

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 lists common use cases such as checking connected services, verifying integration status, debugging, and auditing. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives, though the simple read-only nature makes it low-risk.

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