nifi_get_connection

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the underlying GET endpoint and a concise summary of returned fields, but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 short, front-loaded lines with no wasted words. The retrieved fields are listed first, followed by the backing endpoint, making the description 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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, and annotations already cover the safety profile. However, the description leaves the verbose parameter completely opaque and provides no usage context, which is a clear gap for a tool with undocumented parameters.

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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain either parameter. It never mentions connection_id or what the optional verbose flag changes, so it fails to compensate for the schema's silence.

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 identifies the resource as a single connection and enumerates the key details returned (endpoints, routed relationships, queue depth, prioritizers). The word 'One' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling nifi_list_connections, but no explicit verb or alternative tool is named.

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 nifi_list_connections or nifi_queue_listing. The description only states what is returned, leaving the agent to infer that this is for retrieving a known connection by ID.

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