get_connector_jar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not confirm safety, disclose whether the tool returns a file or metadata, or mention any side effects. The behavior is under-specified for an agent to infer confidently.

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 sentence, which is technically concise, but it lacks substantive content. While it is front-loaded, the brevity comes at the cost of clarity. A slightly longer description with key details would be more effective.

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 the simple tool structure (1 param, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description should at least clarify the tool's purpose and context relative to sibling tools. The current description fails to position this tool within the connector workflow, leaving the agent without sufficient context to decide when to invoke it.

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 no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The description does not explain what 'connector_type' is, what values it accepts, or how it relates to the JAR info. No enums or examples are provided, leaving the agent to guess the expected format.

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 'Get connector JAR information' indicates a read operation on JAR data, but 'connector JAR' is ambiguous—it could refer to file metadata, binary content, or configuration. It vaguely distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_connector' and 'get_connector_details', but does not clarify what specific JAR info is retrieved.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_connector, get_connector_type_details, or list_connectors. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or context such as whether a connector must already be created.

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