conn_get

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

The tool is described as read-only, which implies a non-destructive operation)Skip. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description doesn't reveal what is returned (counts, objects, paths) or how invalid paths are handled.

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?

Two short sentences; no fluff, redundant qualifiers, or boilerplate. The parameter note is compact and scannable.

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?

Basic purpose and parameter are covered, sufficient for a simple getter, but the absence of behavior details (return shape, path format, error cases) and no annotations leaves gaps for an agent needing to use results correctly.

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 only parameter is described as 'Operator path', adding some meaning to the bare string schema, but no format, example, or path convention is given.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Read all input/output connections of a node.' This is reasonably clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like connection_get or conn_create, so it stops short of full clarity.

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 on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as connection_get/conn_delete, and no stated constraints or use cases beyond the literal action.

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