list_connected

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'no API key needed', which hints at authentication behavior, but doesn't cover other critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error handling, or what the output format looks like. The description is too sparse to fully inform agent behavior beyond the basic purpose.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key constraint ('no API key needed'). It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, with no wasted words or redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., read-only status, rate limits), output format, or error handling. For a tool that likely returns a list of APIs, more context on what the output contains and how to interpret it would be necessary for an agent to use it effectively.

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 has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps, and it appropriately doesn't discuss parameters. A baseline of 4 is given since no parameter information is required, and the description doesn't add unnecessary 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 clearly states the action ('List all APIs') and the resource ('APIs available for Direct Call'), specifying the scope with 'no API key needed'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'discover_apis' or 'get_api_details' by focusing on availability for direct calls. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 implies usage context by stating 'no API key needed', suggesting this tool is for accessing APIs without authentication. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'discover_apis' or 'get_api_details', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage somewhat inferred rather than clearly defined.

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