list_connections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context by explaining that include_status=true enriches the response with connection status, which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence delivers the primary purpose, and the second adds an important optional behavior. No redundant information, perfectly front-loaded.

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, no output schema, and complete parameter coverage, the description is mostly adequate. It could mention that results are filtered by project_id and search, but the schema handles that. The inclusion of status behavior is a nice touch. Minor gap: no mention of default ordering or pagination, but acceptable for a list of connections.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only elaborates on the include_status parameter, adding minimal extra meaning beyond the schema. It does not provide additional context for project_id or search beyond their descriptions in the 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?

The description clearly states 'List connections in a project' with a specific verb and resource. It also highlights the optional inclusion of connection status, adding value beyond the tool name. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the name and context make it unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Usage is implied by the tool's name and purpose, but no guidance is provided for scenarios like filtering or alternatives from the sibling list.

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