forcepoint_connection_config_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the read-only nature and Postgres-backed storage, but does not mention permissions, side effects (none expected), or any other behavioral traits. It adds basic transparency but lacks depth.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. Every word serves a function, and there is no 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?

The tool is simple with a single optional parameter and no output schema. The description explains the core function and read-only nature, but it does not mention what the configuration contains or what the return value looks like, which would be helpful given the lack of an output schema.

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 schema has one optional parameter userId, and the description adds 'for one user scope' which gives context that the parameter identifies the user. However, it does not clarify that the parameter is optional or what happens if omitted, so it only partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage in the description.

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 reads Postgres-backed Forcepoint connection configuration for one user scope. The verb 'Read' and resource 'connection configuration' are specific, and the tool is differentiated from sibling tools like forcepoint_connection_config_set.

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 implies usage for reading configuration but does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives like forcepoint_connection_info. The 'Read-only' hint is useful but there is no direct comparison or exclusion.

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