tigergraph__list_connections

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

The annotations already declare this tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining the env-var naming convention and the difference between default and named profiles, which helps the agent understand what 'available' means.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence provides essential clarifying detail about profile configuration without 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, zero-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description is largely complete: it names the resource, the scope ('all available'), and the configuration mechanism. It does not specify the output format, but given the simplicity of the tool and the strong annotations, this is not a significant 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema is already complete, and the description adds relevant context about the environment-variable naming scheme that effectively defines the available profiles. No parameter documentation is needed.

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 tool's purpose: 'List all available TigerGraph connection profiles.' It uses a specific verb ('list') and a specific resource ('connection profiles'), and the 'all available' wording distinguishes it from more specific sibling tools like show_connection. The additional env-var detail reinforces what is being listed.

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 gives useful context about how profiles are configured via environment variables, implying the tool is for discovering configured profiles. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool compared to siblings such as show_connection or authenticate, nor does it provide any when-not-to-use guidance.

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