list_connections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a list operation but doesn't mention whether it's paginated, what authentication is required, rate limits, or the format/structure of returned data. For a 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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the essential information.

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's simplicity (no parameters, has output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema should document return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those. However, for a list operation with sibling alternatives, more contextual guidance would be helpful for the agent.

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 schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). With no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, as there's no parameter semantics to explain beyond what's already covered.

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 all') and resource ('data connections in Polytomic'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'list_connection_types' or 'get_connection', which would require more specific differentiation for a perfect score.

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. With sibling tools like 'get_connection' (for retrieving a specific connection) and 'list_connection_types' (for listing types rather than instances), the agent receives no help in choosing between them. No prerequisites or context for usage are mentioned.

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