list_connections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation and 'available through the bridge' adds scope, but it does not disclose return details, potential empty results, or any side effects. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 redundant words. It communicates the essential purpose efficiently and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is simple (0 params, no output schema), and the core action is stated clearly. However, the description does not mention what the returned connection data includes or any empty/error behavior, leaving some gaps in the context provided to the agent.

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?

This tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to add. The baseline of 4 applies because the schema already fully covers parameters, and the description needs no parameter-level details.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and names the resource 'DMS connections available through the bridge', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_items (items vs connections) and bridge_health. It is direct 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites or ordering with sibling tools, and no exclusions. The description only states what the tool does, not when to choose it.

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