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 states what the tool returns (id, connector, owner) and implies a read-only list operation. However, it does not disclose potential error conditions, authentication requirements, or output formatting/pagination, which are common expectations for list tools.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and output fields, followed by a practical usage hint. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

For a simple one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it lists, the fields returned, and a relevant workflow (deployment settings). Minor gaps like read-only nature and output format are implied by 'list' and the field enumeration, so the description is sufficiently 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?

The only parameter, 'environment', is fully documented in the schema with a description and default behavior. The tool description reinforces that connections are scoped to an environment but adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool lists connections in an environment, specifying the returned fields (id, connector, owner). It is distinct from sibling tools like cs_list_connectors by explicitly focusing on connections and their use in deployment settings.

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 a clear use case: use the ids to map connection references in a deployment settings file before cs_deploy_solution. It gives contextual guidance but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which is acceptable for a straightforward list operation.

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