Get Connection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context by noting it never returns the secret, which is a meaningful behavioral constraint beyond what annotations provide. This is useful security-relevant transparency.

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 one concise sentence with zero filler. The parenthetical adds valuable clarification about what's returned (status/health) and what's excluded (secrets) without waste. Perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool with strong annotations, the description is fairly complete. It specifies the purpose, the return scope, and the security constraint. It could benefit from mentioning the return format or how provider values are validated, but given no output schema exists and this is a simple lookup, coverage is adequate.

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% and there's only one parameter (provider) with no description in the schema. The description mentions 'for one provider' which maps to the provider param but doesn't explain what valid provider values are or how providers are identified. Since coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but only minimally addresses the parameter.

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 tool returns a connection for a provider, specifically status/health information. The verb 'Return' with resource 'connection' is specific. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'kilango_get_connection' vs 'kilango_list_connections' or 'kilango_check_connection_health' which could overlap, giving it a strong but not perfect 4.

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?

The description implies this is for fetching connection status for a single provider, which implies single-item retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this versus 'list_connections' or 'check_connection_health' siblings, which would be valuable given the close functional overlap. No explicit alternatives are named.

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