trmnl_get_connection_attempt

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description only needs to add context. 'Authoritative' hints that the returned state is the source of truth rather than a cached value, and 'owned' suggests scoping to the caller's account, but nothing is said about error behavior (404 vs expired attempt) or what state fields come back.

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 terse fragments with no wasted prose, front-loaded with the action and followed by the endpoint mapping. It is efficient, if a bit clipped - the terseness reflects under-specification rather than verbosity.

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?

For a single-parameter read with full annotation coverage, the agent can call this correctly. However, with no output schema, the description should carry more of the return-value burden - the possible attempt states and how they map to the confirm/cancel siblings are left unexplained.

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 coverage is only 50%: the 'profile' parameter is documented in the schema, while the nested path.id is a bare uuid with no description. The description partially compensates by exposing the REST path with {id}, clarifying that id refers to a connection attempt identifier, but it does not explain profile selection as it relates to this lookup.

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?

States a clear verb+resource: read the state of a plugin connection attempt by id, and the embedded REST endpoint ('GET /api/plugin_connection_attempts/{id}') removes ambiguity about which object is fetched. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling write operations trmnl_cancel_connection_attempt / trmnl_confirm_connection_attempt, though 'Read' implies the distinction.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the connection-attempt lifecycle (start → poll → confirm/cancel), and no indication of whether repeated polling is expected or what to do on an unknown/expired id. The agent must infer the usage entirely from the tool name and endpoint.

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