list_connections

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: the exact return array shape, the meaning of 'status', and the warning that the endpoint is unofficial/unsupported and behavior may change. This goes beyond the structured data.

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 structured with clear sections: purpose, return format, status explanation, parameter note, endpoint warning, and example. It is slightly verbose (e.g., the parameter line is redundant), but the warning and example earn their place.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers everything needed: purpose, return value, status semantics, parameter guidance, reliability caveat, and a usage example. No critical information is missing.

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 100% and already fully describes the 'environment' parameter. The description merely restates 'environment (optional)' and an example call, adding no new semantic information beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action on a specific resource: 'List the connections (API connectors) in an environment and their health.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling list tools (list_environments, list_flows) by specifying connections and health.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use: the explanation 'A status other than "Connected" indicates a broken/expired connection — a common cause of silently failing flows' implies diagnostic use. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is strong enough for a simple tool.

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