get_connection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is clearly safe. The description adds value with the 'NOTE: Secret values are REDACTED' warning, indicating that the response will not contain actual credentials. This important behavioral trait goes beyond the annotations.

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 consists of two concise sentences and a short note. Every word earns its place, and no unnecessary information is included. It is front-loaded with the action and returns, making it easy to scan.

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 simple read tool with one parameter and strong annotations, the description is adequate but not complete. It mentions the return of 'connection metadata and schema' without detailing what those contain. Since there is no output schema, providing more specifics (e.g., 'returns fields such as name, type, ...') would enhance completeness.

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 input schema already describes the only parameter ('connectionId') with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional meaning or context about the parameter (e.g., format, source of the ID). Since the schema does the job, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Gets detailed information') and the resource ('a specific Cognigy.AI connection'). It also mentions what it returns ('connection metadata and schema'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like list_connections or other get operations, which would be helpful for an AI agent deciding which tool to use.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_connections or update_connection. The description does not specify prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. This leaves the AI agent with insufficient decision-making support.

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