get_connection_capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It does disclose that the return value excludes secrets, which is a meaningful behavioral detail. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the connection_id is invalid, or any permission requirements. The 'without secrets' phrase adds some transparency, but other aspects are missing.

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 redundant words. It states the action, target, and a key differentiator (without secrets) in a minimal and efficient manner.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (as indicated by context), the description does not need to detail return values. The tool is simple with one parameter, and the description covers its main purpose. However, it lacks usage context (when to prefer this over list_connections or test_connection) and does not explain what an 'adapter capability matrix' is, which might be ambiguous to users unfamiliar with the domain.

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%, and the description does not explicitly explain the connection_id parameter. It implies that the tool operates on a specific connection, and the parameter name itself is suggestive, but the description adds no direct clarification about the parameter's format, uniqueness, or how to obtain a valid identifier. This falls short of compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 specifies the action ('Return'), the resource ('one connection'), and the specific output ('adapter capability matrix'). It also notes that secrets are excluded, which further defines the scope. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_connections (which likely lists all connections) and test_connection (which tests connectivity).

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this tool is for retrieving a single connection's capabilities, nor does it compare with list_connections or test_connection. The user must infer usage from the tool name and context.

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