list_inputs

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. The verb 'list' and the phrase 'names of previously created' imply a read-only operation and indicate the return content, but it does not disclose potential effects of the payload parameter or any edge cases. It is minimally transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and scope.

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 listing operation, the description is adequate and benefits from having an output schema. However, the complete lack of payload semantics and absence of any pointer to describe_inputs for details leaves the description minimally viable but not fully self-sufficient.

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 schema defines a single 'payload' parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention it at all. The agent has no guidance on whether payload is needed for filtering or what format it should take, making this a significant gap.

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), the resource (input connectors), and the scope (names of previously created). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like describe_inputs and list_outputs.

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 clear context: it lists existing input connector names. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for similar tasks, but the use case is evident. A 4 is appropriate because it lacks explicit 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.