list_tools_with_connections

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It explains the grouping logic and the connection to the extension view, but does not mention read-only status, permissions, or the behavior of the 'limit' parameter. The description is adequate but lacks some behavioral context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes a useful example. Every word contributes value with no fluff.

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's simplicity, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, grouping, and usage context. It lacks details about the return format and the limit parameter, but the lack of an output schema and the straightforward nature of a list operation keep it reasonably complete.

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 defines a single optional 'limit' parameter with no description, and the tool description does not mention this parameter at all. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to explain the parameter's meaning or effect, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 tool's function: listing Watson Orchestrate tools grouped by connection status, distinguishing between API key/OAuth-requiring tools and standard tools. It also ties to the extension Tools view and provides an example prompt, making it distinct from siblings like list_standard_tools and list_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?

The description provides a concrete usage example ('list my tools with active connections') and mentions matching the extension Tools view, giving clear guidance on when to use it. It doesn't explicitly rule out alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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