find_signal_connections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('List') and the output format ('flat ... rows'), plus the filtering behavior. This goes beyond a bare 'find' description, though it doesn't discuss edge cases like empty results or invalid inputs.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the primary action ('List every signal connection'), then output format, then filters. Every phrase adds value with no unnecessary words.

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's low complexity (2 optional filters, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, output format, and filtering. It does not detail error handling or empty-result behavior, but for a straightforward list tool this is sufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description explicitly explains both parameters: filtering by 'signal name' maps to signal_name, and 'source path substring' maps to node_path. This compensates for the missing schema descriptions, though it doesn't state defaults or matching exactness.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'every signal connection in the edited scene' and defines the output as 'flat source, signal, target and method rows'. This distinguishes it from siblings like connect_signal or analyze_signal_flow, which have different operations.

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 clearly implies usage: it is for enumerating all signal connections, optionally filtered by signal name or source path. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the purpose itself differentiates it from mutation and analysis tools.

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