Lister les connexions Quantower

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds that only ACTIVE connections are listed and that connectionId is the key output, which is useful context beyond annotations, but it says nothing about return format, pagination, or behavior when no connection is active.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with no filler; the purpose comes first and the usage note second. The trailing "(multi-connexion, plan §1.1)" is a slightly noisy internal reference but does not bloat the text.

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-param lister with readOnly hints, the description carries enough: what it returns (connectionId) and why it matters. No output schema exists, so the brief mention of the returned connectionId is helpful, though the exact response shape and multi-connection ordering remain undocumented.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate on the input side.

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?

Specific verb+resource: "Liste les connexions actives de Quantower" and it clarifies the resource by naming it (brokers / flux de données). This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like quantower_list_accounts and quantower_status without needing to name them.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent why and when to use it: the returned connectionId is "requis ou utile pour la plupart des autres tools," framing it as a prerequisite/discovery call in a multi-connection setup. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative, but the routing intent is clear.

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