List connections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the output content (id, URL, state) but does not explicitly confirm that the operation is non-destructive or read-only. It also omits any mention of authentication requirements, potential errors, or the possibility of stale data, which are important for safe agent decision-making.

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, clear sentence that exactly covers the tool's purpose and output. It is front-loaded with the essential information and contains no filler or redundant phrases. For a tool with no parameters and a straightforward listing function, this level of conciseness is ideal.

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 has zero parameters and an output schema exists, the description does not need to elaborate on return structure. The description mentions the key fields (id, URL, state) which complements the output schema. However, it is minimal and does not cover edge cases like empty connection lists or error behavior, but these are less critical given the simple nature of the operation.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by definition. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not introduce any parameter-related ambiguity. It adds no parameter information because none exists, which is appropriate.

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 'List connections' provides the verb, and the description specifies the resource: 'Every connection the service currently holds, with its id, URL and state.' This clearly conveys a read-only listing operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like teleport_connection_status, but the phrase 'every connection' implies a comprehensive listing versus a singular status check.

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 lacks any mention of expected use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. There is no reference to sibling tools such as teleport_connection_status or teleport_disconnect, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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