list_connected_accounts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the return shape: accounts grouped by connector, showing identifier, status, and auth details. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, the read-only nature of listing, or any side effects, leaving noticeable gaps for a tool with no annotation safety indicators.

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 two sentences with no filler: scope, filters, and return shape are communicated directly. Key information is front-loaded, and every phrase earns its 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 six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the core purpose, filters, and return grouping, but omits pagination semantics, the summary vs. full-detail distinction, and any differentiation from similar connection-listing siblings. These are meaningful gaps for a list-oriented tool.

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 67%, with environmentId and pageSize lacking schema descriptions. The description adds meaning for connector and connectionId by framing them as filters, and it clarifies the grouped-by-connector output. It does not compensate for the undocumented pageSize and environmentId parameters, but it does provide some value 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 clearly states the action (List), resource (users/connected accounts who authorized with connectors), and scope (given environment). It also specifies filtering by connector type or connection ID, which makes the tool's purpose concrete. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the resource and grouping behavior distinguish it from shared 'list' siblings enough for an agent.

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 provides clear usage context: use this tool to list connected accounts authorized with connectors in a specific environment. The filter options give practical guidance on narrowing results. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the use case is clear enough without exclusions.

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