List Connectors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered, but the description goes further: it enumerates returned fields, explicitly states credentials are never returned, and warns connector management may be unavailable in some environments — genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Three bold-labelled sections keep Purpose, Returns, and Auth front-loaded and scannable with no filler sentences. Slightly expository for a list tool, but every sentence carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating return fields, and it also covers auth and availability caveats. Only gap is pagination/volume behavior for a list operation, which an agent might care about.

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 the schema already documents both 'cluster' and 'organization'. The description echoes cluster scoping but adds no format or semantics beyond what the schema supplies, which is the baseline case.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (managed connectors) plus the scope constraint (one RawTree cluster). An agent can distinguish this from get-connector, create-connector, and add-connector-destination without opening any schema.

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 listing/scope semantics imply when to call it, and the auth sentence gives useful preconditions (user credential + organization membership), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives routing (e.g., 'to inspect a single connector, use get-connector'). Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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