List connectors available in an environment

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 usefully discloses caching behavior under .cs-catalog/<environment>/connectors.json, offline fallback to the public seed, and the data source ('same list the portal's Add a tool shows'). But it omits authentication prerequisites (beyond the sign-in fallback hint), rate limits, pagination, and error behavior.

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 essentially one compact sentence with semicolons, front-loading the core purpose and then adding cache/offline behavior. There is no filler, though the dense packaging could be slightly split for readability.

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 9 parameters with 0 required and no output schema, the description could do more to explain the shape of the returned connector list (e.g., fields beyond mcpLikely) and the authentication context. It covers the data source and offline behavior but leaves gaps around parameter interactions and return details.

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 67%, so the schema documents most parameters. The description adds meaning to the search and offline parameters by explaining the offline fallback and cache usage, and notes the mcpLikely output field. It does not explain several other parameters (mcpOnly, customOnly, refresh, clientId, tenantId, workspace, environmentId) beyond what the schema already says.

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+resource ('list connectors') and clarifies the scope (Microsoft-published and custom connectors, with an mcpLikely flag). It distinguishes from generic lists by referencing the portal's 'Add a tool' view, but it does not explicitly contrast with nearby siblings like cs_describe_connector or cs_list_connections.

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?

Usage is implied: the tool lists connectors in an environment. The description notes offline caching and a fallback to the public connector seed when searching without sign-in, which hints at when the tool works in disconnected scenarios. However, it never states when to use this versus alternatives such as cs_describe_connector for details or cs_list_connections for connections.

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