get_connection_config

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

No annotations provided, so description should fully disclose behavior. It only states it returns the config and lists error codes. Missing details on authentication, side effects (read-only implied), or performance. Error codes are helpful but not comprehensive.

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 concise with two sentences. Purpose is front-loaded, and error codes are listed. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.

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 complexity (several sibling tools, output schema exists), the description could provide more context about what ConnectionConfiguration contains or how it differs from related tools. It is minimal and leaves the agent to infer.

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?

No parameters in input schema, so description does not need to add parameter meaning. Schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description's lack of parameter detail is not a problem.

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 returns the current ConnectionConfiguration, which is a specific resource. It is clear but does not differentiate from other 'get_' siblings like 'get_connection', though the name specifies 'config'.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it. Sibling 'put_connection_config' exists for updates, but the description does not clarify selection.

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