List Patient Connections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the scope ('associated with the logged-in account') and that the return value contains patient IDs, which implies a read-only list operation. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error cases, or pagination, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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, with the main purpose stated first and the return value second. No filler or redundant information is present.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential workflow context (returns patient IDs for glucose tools) and scope. It could add more detail about the exact response structure, but the description is largely complete for its simplicity.

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?

There are no parameters to document; the schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per the rubric, the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description sensibly adds context about the logged-in account rather than parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'patient connections' and scopes it to 'the logged-in account'. It additionally distinguishes from the sibling glucose reading tools by explaining it returns patient IDs needed for those tools.

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 states the output is 'patient IDs needed for glucose reading tools', which positions this as a prerequisite step before using get_current_glucose, get_glucose_history, or get_glucose_summary. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the workflow context is clear.

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