List connections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the payload shape (id, connector, owner) and the intended downstream use, but says nothing about permissions/auth requirements, pagination, whether the environment defaults to the active profile, or whether results are scoped or complete. Adequate for a read-only list, 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?

Two compact sentences: the operation and its return fields are front-loaded, followed immediately by the actionable workflow hint. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. For a simple environment-scoped list call the description is nearly sufficient; only the absence of any note on default environment behavior or result volume keeps it from being complete.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains that 'environment' takes an id or URL and defaults to the active pac auth profile. The description's 'in an environment' adds no syntax or format detail beyond that. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('list connections that exist in an environment') and even enumerates the returned fields (id, connector, owner), so the agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby cs_list_connectors (connector types) or cs_create_connection, but the 'exist in an environment' phrasing implies instance-level connections rather than catalog entries.

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 a concrete usage context and workflow: 'Use the ids to map connection references in a deployment settings file before cs_deploy_solution.' That tells the agent when this tool belongs in a sequence. It stops short of stating when not to use it or naming the closest alternative (cs_list_connectors) for disambiguation.

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