List tool connections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context: it specifies the HTTP method (GET) and authorization class ('board'), which helps the agent understand the operation's nature and access requirements. No contradictions with 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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences, both front-loaded. The first sentence gives the purpose, and the second provides the HTTP operation and authorization. Every word adds value, with no filler or redundancy.

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 read-only list tool with one parameter, the description covers the action, resource, and operation details. However, with 0% schema coverage, it should provide at least a brief explanation of the 'companyId' parameter. The output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere, but the input is not. This is a gap.

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 0%, meaning the schema does not describe parameters. The description does not add any parameter semantics; it does not explain what 'companyId' represents or what the 'path' structure is. With 0% coverage, the description must compensate, but it fails to do so.

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 title and description clearly state the action 'List' and the resource 'tool connections'. Among the many sibling tools, there are other tool-related endpoints (e.g., create, update, delete), but this one is uniquely for listing connections, so it distinguishes itself. However, it does not explain what 'tool connections' are, which could be slightly ambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it. The annotations indicate read-only and idempotent, but explicit usage guidelines are missing.

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