List connectors available in an environment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses caching under .cs-catalog/<environment>/connectors.json, offline seed fallback, and the presence of an mcpLikely flag, which go beyond the title. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but 'List' plus the registry framing make that clear.

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 compact and information-dense: it defines the registry, lists included connector types, notes the MCP flag, and explains caching/offline behavior in two sentences. Every clause earns its place and the most identifying information is 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?

The description covers source, contents, caching, and offline fallback, which is solid for a list tool. However, there is no output schema and the description does not mention return shape, item fields, or pagination, so an agent must infer what the result actually looks like.

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 schema documents six of nine parameters with descriptions; search, mcpOnly, and customOnly lack schema descriptions. The description adds some related meaning by mentioning the mcpLikely flag and the search-without-sign-in fallback, but it does not clearly map these to the undocumented parameters, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 verb ('List') and the resource (connector registry for an environment), and adds concrete scope: Microsoft-published and custom connectors plus an mcpLikely flag. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like cs_list_connections or cs_describe_connector, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 useful context about when the list matches the portal's Add a tool view and mentions offline fallback behavior for search with no sign-in. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as cs_list_connections or cs_describe_connector, leaving selection mostly implied.

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