list_connected

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently notes that the tool works without key paste, defaults to a compact execution-ready summary, and only includes source-verified entries when verbose=true. It does not disclose output format details or potential side effects, but for a list/summary tool the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 three tight sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the verbose condition is stated clearly, and the sibling-tool alternative is given without unnecessary detail.

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 two-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description gives sufficient context to invoke it correctly: what it lists, the default mode, when to enable verbose, and when to use an alternative. It does not specify the exact return fields, but the phrase 'compact execution-ready summary' gives a usable mental model.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds usage context for verbose but no additional semantic detail beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as returning a summary of managed providers callable right now through APIClaw without key paste, which is a specific resource and scope. It also distinguishes the tool from discover_apis by mentioning that discover_apis is for narrow lookups rather than dumping the whole catalog.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use verbose=true, namely only when source-verified discovery entries are needed. It also directs agents to use discover_apis(query) for narrow lookups instead, providing clear routing guidance among sibling tools.

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