list_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 disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that the tool lists available connector applications, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, how the limit parameter affects results, or the structure of the return value. This lack of transparency could lead to incorrect assumptions about side effects or pagination behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise for a simple listing operation. However, its brevity comes at the cost of missing important information about parameters and usage, so it is not perfect.

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?

Given the tool has a limit parameter and no output schema, the description should explain how the limit affects results and what the return format is. It also lacks any mention of pagination or filtering behavior. The description is too sparse to be considered complete for a tool with even minimal complexity.

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 schema has one parameter (limit) with no description, and the catalog description does not mention it at all. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate by explaining the parameter's purpose, but it fails to do so. The agent has no guidance on what 'limit' controls or how it should be used.

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 clearly states the action (list), the resource (connector applications), and the source (the catalog). This effectively distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like list_connections, which likely list connections rather than connector applications. The verb and object are specific and 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_connections or list_standard_tools. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The user is left without information about appropriate usage.

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