list_outputs

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only listing operation but does not clarify the role of the optional payload parameter, potential filtering, pagination, or error behavior. The description is too sparse to adequately inform the agent of the tool's behavior beyond the obvious 'list' semantics.

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, focused sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise for a simple listing operation.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description is incomplete given the presence of an optional payload parameter and context from sibling tools. It does not explain the payload's role, nor does it position the tool relative to describe_outputs or other output-related tools. The output schema may describe return values, but the input side remains ambiguous, making the overall guidance insufficient for correct invocation.

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 one optional payload parameter with no description (schema coverage 0%). The description also does not mention the payload parameter, its purpose, or how to use it. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent with no understanding of the parameter's meaning.

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 lists names of previously created output connectors, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like describe_outputs (which would provide details) and list_inputs (different resource type).

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that describe_outputs is better for detailed information or that list_inputs covers inputs. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from sibling names.

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