list_connections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It accurately describes the operation as listing all connections with no side effects. While it doesn't mention read-only or authentication requirements, the simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema make the description sufficient. A small deduction for not explicitly stating it is a read-only operation.

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 relatively long but well-structured with a clear workflow. Every sentence contributes useful context, and the numbered steps improve readability. It is slightly longer than necessary but remains effective.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema present), the description is complete. It explains the tool's role in the overall workflow, defines key concepts, and provides actionable guidance, leaving no significant gaps.

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, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description indirectly adds value by explaining how the returned connection IDs are used in other tools, which enhances the semantic understanding beyond the empty schema.

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 that the tool lists all CDV data connections and explicitly positions it as 'STEP 1 of every data workflow'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_connection' and 'create_connection' by focusing on listing all connections and providing the workflow context.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'always run this FIRST' and gives a complete 6-step workflow. Additionally, it includes a rule for when not to create a new connection, which helps the agent avoid unnecessary actions.

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