list_data_connectors

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

The description claims a default max of 100 results, but the input schema sets the default limit to 1000, creating a direct contradiction. No other behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, access requirements) are disclosed, and annotations are absent.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose and search criteria. However, the limit discrepancy detracts from clarity and accuracy.

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 no output schema and many parameters, the description is incomplete. It omits the purpose of the repository and force_refresh parameters, does not describe the return format, and contains a factual error about the limit default.

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 description only covers 3 of 8 parameters (connector_type, name, path_contains), leaving 5 undocumented. With low schema description coverage, the description does not compensate by explaining the missing parameters or providing additional context beyond the schema.

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 (Microsoft Sentinel data connectors), and the search criteria (by connector type, name, or file path). It also provides a default limit, making the purpose specific and distinguishable from sibling tools.

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 mentions search criteria but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other list tools). There is no guidance on when not to use it or context about prerequisites.

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