list_connectors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only enumeration behavior, but it does not clarify whether 'available' means configured, active, or live-reachable, nor does it describe the return shape. This is adequate for a simple list operation but thin on behavioral detail.

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 sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded. It includes useful examples without wasted words, and this brevity is appropriate for a zero-parameter list tool.

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 simple zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the operation, the resource, and example connectors. It could add whether this is a live check or static catalog, but no operationally 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?

The tool has zero parameters and empty schema with 100% schema description coverage. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it correctly avoids adding irrelevant parameter guidance.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('available enrichment connectors') with concrete examples (VirusTotal, Shodan). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the many search/lookup siblings, which query threat data rather than enumerate available connectors.

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 intended use case is clear: an agent should call this when it needs to know which enrichment connectors are available. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool appears to handle connector enumeration, so the usage context is evident.

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