List Unfour Connections

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context with 'safe summaries' and 'active workspace', giving agent signals about output scope and safety beyond the structured annotations.

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 one short, focused sentence. It front-loads the core action and adds scope and result-nature information without unnecessary words or 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 tool with one optional parameter, a strong annotation profile, and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It could be more explicit about which connection types are covered and how this tool relates to db/ssh-specific connection listings, but nothing critical is missing.

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 single parameter is fully described in the input schema with an enum, default value, and clear description. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to repeat parameter details; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies an action and scope: listing connection summaries scoped to the active workspace. It uses a concrete verb and noun phrasing, but it does not explicitly distinguish this generic connection listing from sibling tools such as unfour.db.list_connections or unfour.ssh.list_connections.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as db.list_connections or ssh.list_connections. It also does not mention whether the optional type filter changes which sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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