list_connections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions pagination parameters and filtering/sorting options, it doesn't describe authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when no connections exist. For a listing tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 reasonably structured with Args and Returns sections, but contains contradictory information about parameters. The first sentence 'List connections' is under-specified, while the parameter documentation is detailed but mismatched with the schema. The structure is clear but the content has significant issues.

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 parameter mismatch between description and schema (5 described vs 1 actual), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is completely inadequate. An agent would be unable to correctly invoke this tool due to the contradictory parameter information and lack of behavioral context.

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 description documents 5 parameters (page, page_size, filter_connection_name_contains, filter_outbound_voice_profile_id, sort), but the input schema shows only 1 parameter ('request') with 0% schema description coverage. This creates a serious mismatch where the description suggests specific filtering parameters that don't appear in the actual schema. The description fails to explain the 'request' object parameter that the schema requires.

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 'List connections' which is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what type of connections (Telnyx voice connections, messaging connections, etc.) or what information is included in the listing. Compared to sibling tools like 'list_phone_numbers' or 'list_messaging_profiles', this lacks differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or how this differs from other list tools in the sibling set. The description doesn't help an agent understand when this specific listing tool is appropriate.

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