get_group_connectors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it lists connections; it does not mention pagination behavior (despite a cursor parameter), whether it returns all pages, or any other behavioral trait such as read-only semantics or rate limits. This leaves significant room for misinterpretation.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope. Every word earns its place, and there is no extraneous information.

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?

This is a simple list tool with three parameters, one required, and a complete schema. The description adequately conveys the core purpose, and the schema handles pagination parameters. Since no output schema is present, a bit more detail about the return format could help, but for this level of complexity, the description is sufficient.

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 each parameter (limit, cursor, group_id) having a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it just reaffirms that the group_id is the filter. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema fully documents parameters.

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 'List all connections within a specific group' uses a specific verb (List) and resource (connections) with a clearly scoped target (a specific group). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_connections by implying group-level filtering, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 for retrieving connections tied to a group, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_connections. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, so it relies on the reader to infer the group-scoped context from the name and description.

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