List connections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by documenting the return payload shape and the provider enum values, which matters because there is no output schema; it stops short of error or edge-case behavior.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct load: what it lists, what it returns, and how to use the result. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 parameters, no output schema and annotation coverage of the safety profile, the description supplies exactly the missing piece: the return structure and provider domain. An agent has everything needed to call it and use its result.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline is a 4 by rule. The description also clarifies how the connectionId it yields is consumed downstream, though that concerns siblings rather than this tool's own 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 (List) and resource (connections you can address documents under) and immediately clarifies the scope of what a connection is. This is clearly separable from siblings like register_document or open_document, which consume a connectionId rather than enumerate connections.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use a returned connectionId for register_document and the document tools, and never prompt the user for it. That is a concrete when-to-use rule plus an explicit prohibition, which is rare and valuable.

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