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 behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the bare action. It does not say whether the output includes connection strings, credentials, hosts, or just labels, nor whether it is paginated, ordered, or includes disabled/inactive connections.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the action is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity edges toward under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 definition is minimally adequate, but it leaves the return payload entirely undefined and does not disambiguate 'connections' from the several connection-related siblings. No output schema exists, so the description was the place to say what comes back.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter confusion is possible.

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?

States a clear verb+resource ('Lista todas as conexões configuradas'), making it obvious this is a read/list operation over configured connections. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as test_all_connections or get_connections_status, leaving the boundary to inference.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and names no alternatives. An agent must infer that this is the choice when it wants an inventory of connections rather than a health/status or connectivity test, which is exactly the sibling ambiguity the description should have resolved.

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