list_page_shield_connections

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

The description conveys a read-only listing operation scoped to Page Shield detections, which is useful. However, with no annotations provided, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination, result limits, or whether Page Shield must be enabled for the zone.

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 filler. It says exactly what the tool does and nothing more, which is ideal for a simple list operation.

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 one-parameter list call with 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally sufficient. However, the absence of any usage guidance or behavioral context, and no output schema, leaves the agent to infer some details that a more complete description could provide.

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 schema already fully documents the only parameter, zone_id, with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage applies.

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 operation ('List') and the resource ('connections detected by Page Shield'). It differentiates from sibling tools like list_page_shield_scripts and list_page_shield_policies by naming a distinct resource type, though it does not explicitly compare itself to 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what prerequisites apply, or how it differs from alternatives. Given the large sibling list, an agent is left to infer context from the name alone.

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