cdp_get_output_connector_def

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't address authentication needs, rate limits, error responses, or whether it returns full or partial definition data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational 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?

The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get a specific output connector definition') and specifies the key constraint ('by ID') efficiently. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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's low complexity (simple retrieval by ID), 2 parameters, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it fails to address authentication, errors, or parameter details, leaving the agent under-informed. It meets the bare minimum but doesn't compensate for the lack of structured data.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'by ID', which loosely maps to 'connector_def_id', but doesn't explain what this ID is (e.g., numeric identifier), its format, or how to obtain it. It completely ignores 'tenant_id' (optional parameter), leaving its purpose and when to use it undocumented. The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter names.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a specific output connector definition by ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'cdp_list_output_connector_defs' (which lists multiple) and 'cdp_get_output_connector' (which retrieves an instance rather than a definition). However, it doesn't specify what an 'output connector definition' entails (e.g., configuration template), leaving some room for interpretation.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for retrieving a single definition by ID, but it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the ID from a list operation), contrast it with 'cdp_get_output_connector' (for instances), or specify error conditions (e.g., invalid ID). The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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