list_connections

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 implies a read-only listing operation by saying '列出' (list), but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it disclose return format, pagination, or prerequisites. For a simple list tool this is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope. There is no redundant or filler text; every sentence earns its place.

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, the description covers the main purpose and a practical use case. However, since there is no output schema, it does not describe the exact return structure beyond 'connections and status,' and it omits edge cases like empty results. Still, it is largely complete for this simple tool.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful context about what the output will contain (connections and their status), which is sufficient given there are no parameters to document.

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 clear action verb '列出' (list) with specific scope: '当前所有通讯连接及其状态' (all current communication connections and their status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like setup_connection, remove_connection, and list_devices by focusing on connections and their status rather than setup, removal, or device listing.

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 a concrete use case: '用于确认已添加的连接' (used to confirm added connections), which gives context for when to call this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it with alternatives like list_devices, so it lacks exclusions.

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