query_connections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does supply some real behavioral context: pagination over components, stable link IDs preserved for later disconnect, and the coordinate convention ('uncentred integer blocks'). However, it never states that the operation is read-only or what the response shape is beyond the output schema, leaving gaps for a mutation-adjacent tool.

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?

It is terse and free of filler, but it reads like shorthand notes rather than a front-loaded statement of purpose; the reader must assemble meaning from fragments. Reasonably sized, but the most important information (what it does) is not placed first.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be enumerated in prose, which excuses some brevity. Still, the required input, usage context, and read-only status are missing, so the definition is only partially complete for the calling decision.

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 0%, so the description should compensate but largely does not. 'Paginate components' loosely covers limit/offset, but the required 'design' parameter is never explained, and no parameter formats or defaults are given in prose.

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 opens with a noun-phrase list ('Installed/configured node indices, transmission surface indices, wires and draft revision') rather than a clear verb+resource, so the agent must infer from the name that this reads connection topology. It conveys the domain (node/wire/pipe connections) but never states outright what the tool returns or does. The intended read-only nature is only implied by contrast with siblings like edit_connections.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as edit_connections or route_connections, which an agent must distinguish this from. The only procedural hint is 'Paginate components,' which touches mechanics but not selection criteria.

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