describe_connection_convention

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Explain,' implying a read-only operation, but omits any behavioral traits like auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The description adds minimal transparency.

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?

A single sentence is concise but lacks structure. It is front-loaded but too brief to be maximally helpful. Every word earns its place, but more detail would improve it.

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 tool has no parameters but has an output schema, the description should explain what 'convention helpers' are and what the output provides. It fails to do so, leaving the agent with an ambiguous understanding of what will be returned.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so the description cannot add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 4 applies as the schema provides complete coverage.

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 states it 'Explain[s] the optional Nango MCP connection convention helpers,' which is a bit vague. It identifies the resource (convention helpers) and action (explain) but doesn't specify what aspect or level of detail, nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like 'apply_connection_convention'.

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 alternatives (e.g., when to describe vs. apply a convention). No exclusions or context provided.

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