list_connections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose behavior beyond structure: it enumerates the return fields, pins the provider enum values ('filesystem' or 'sharepoint'), and adds the non-obvious directive never to ask the user for a connectionId. Remaining gap is that canCreateDocuments' meaning is left implicit.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the return shape, then the actionable usage rule. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields.

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 zero-param read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates well by describing the returned fields and their use in the document workflow. Slight gap: canCreateDocuments' semantics and whether the list can be empty are not addressed.

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?

Zero input parameters, so baseline is 4. The description goes further by documenting the output fields (connectionId, provider, canCreateDocuments), which is the only place that information exists given there is no output schema.

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 (List) and resource (connections), plus the scope ('you can address documents under'), which distinguishes it from sibling document tools like open_document and register_document. It even describes the return shape, so an agent knows exactly what this yields.

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?

Gives explicit downstream guidance: use the returned connectionId for register_document and the document tools, and never ask the user for it. It doesn't explicitly say 'call this before register_document', but the routing intent is clear enough to act on.

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