get_connections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It's a read-like operation ('return') but doesn't clarify whether login is required, whether results are paginated, what 'visible people links' means exactly, or whether there are rate limits. With zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap for a scraping/browser tool.

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 with zero wasted words. However, it's somewhat under-specified rather than genuinely concise - brevity without substance. Still, for what it covers, it's well-structured and front-loaded.

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 tool with 2 params, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides only minimal value. It doesn't explain result format, pagination behavior, the purpose of the limit parameter, or what keywords match against. Given the tool's moderate complexity (a scraping operation on a dynamic social network), this is inadequate.

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%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't mention the 'limit' parameter at all, and 'keywords' is completely undocumented. The input schema only provides basic type constraints (integer with min/max, string) with no descriptions, so the agent is left guessing what keywords filters against (names? companies? titles?).

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 'Open your connections list and return visible people links' - a specific verb ('return') with a clear resource (connections/people links). However, among siblings like get_pending_invitations, get_profile, and search_people, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from other connection-related tools, so not a full 5.

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 given on when to use this tool versus siblings like search_people, get_pending_invitations, or get_feed. The description doesn't mention exclusions, preconditions (e.g., must be logged in), or when not to use it. There's also a sibling 'send_connection_request' and 'accept_invitation' that relate to connections but no delineation is offered.

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