list_connections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by specifying the source (config.json), which implies the tool reads from a local configuration file. However, it does not disclose potential behaviors like handling of missing files, sensitive data exposure, or whether it validates connections. For a simple read-only list, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single concise sentence that states exactly what the tool does and where it reads from. There is no redundancy or filler, every word earns its place.

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 low complexity (zero parameters, simple listing operation) and lack of output schema, the description is sufficient. It identifies the source and the purpose. It does not spell out the return format, but for a list operation named 'list_connections', the expected result is implicitly the list of connections. Slight improvement could clarify whether connection names or full configurations are returned, but overall it is complete enough.

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 the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema), so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and no deduction is warranted.

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 a specific action ('List all available Graylog connections') on a specific resource (connections configured in ~/.graylog-mcp/config.json). It distinguishes from sibling tools like use_connection by focusing on listing rather than activating, and from other list tools like list_streams or list_saved_searches by targeting connection objects.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you want to see all configured Graylog connections. It implies a read-only listing operation. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, such as noting that use_connection is the tool to select/activate a connection, though the distinction is reasonably inferable from the tool name.

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