fabricsGetFabricConnections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action ('Get the list') without disclosing behavioral traits like whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit), pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if no connections exist. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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, efficient sentence ('Get the list of connections.') with no wasted words. However, it's front-loaded but overly brief, potentially under-specifying the context, which slightly reduces its effectiveness despite good conciseness.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a read operation with 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return format (e.g., list structure), error conditions, or how it interacts with sibling tools, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and usage.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (fabricId and candidate). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or edge cases, but since the schema is well-documented, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't need to compensate.

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 'Get the list of connections' states the basic action (get/list) and resource (connections), but it's vague about what type of connections (fabric connections, based on tool name and sibling tools). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'fabricsGetFabricConnection' (singular) or 'fabricsAddFabricConnections', leaving ambiguity about scope and differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include 'fabricsGetFabricConnection' (singular), 'fabricsAddFabricConnections', and 'fabricsSetFabricConnections', but the description doesn't mention these or specify contexts like retrieving all connections vs. a specific one, making it hard for an agent to choose correctly.

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