list_connectors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns 'latest connection state', which is a useful output detail, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits (e.g., network calls, freshness of state). With annotations present, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 concise sentence that immediately states the action and object. It is front-loaded, contains no filler, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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 simple list tool with no parameters, robust annotations, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It specifies the resource and the kind of state returned, though it could optionally elaborate on the structure of the 'connection state' data, but this is not required for basic use.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty and covers 100% of the inputs. Per the baseline for 0 params, the description need not add parameter details; however, it adds context about what is being listed (configuration and connection state), which is meaningful beyond the 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('configured external MCP connectors') and adds 'their latest connection state' to clarify the scope. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like add_connector, remove_connector, and refresh_connectors, which are mutations.

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 implies usage as a read-only listing operation, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or mention that add/remove/refresh are for modifications. With sibling tools present, more explicit guidance would improve this.

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