List connections

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses important behavior: connectors glued at only one end or neither end return null on the loose side, which is how broken diagrams are detected. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 and well-structured: a front-loaded purpose statement, a valuable edge-case note, and a compact parameter list. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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?

The description is complete for a read-only list tool with optional parameters and an output schema. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, and the key null-value behavior, leaving no critical gap for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameters. It clearly explains both page and document: name or 1-based index, and that omitting them targets the on-screen page or active document. This is exactly what an agent needs.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read the page as a graph: which shape each connector runs from and to.' This clearly identifies the tool as inspecting connector topology, distinguishing it from sibling tools like visio_list_shapes or visio_get_shape.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to understand connector relationships and to spot broken diagrams via null values on loose connector ends. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is evident.

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