Get Operator Connections

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

No annotations provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It clearly states the tool returns data (read operation) and does not suggest side effects. However, it does not explicitly state it is read-only or safe, which would be ideal with no 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 is two concise sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose and the second provides a concrete example. No unnecessary words, and front-loaded with key information.

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 no output schema, the description adequately describes the return types (inputs, outputs, chains, port instructions). The parameter count is low and complexity is modest, so the description is largely complete, though it could mention if the output is structured (e.g., JSON) for extra clarity.

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 coverage is 100% with meaningful descriptions for both parameters. The description adds extra context by explaining the port instruction format (e.g., 'A output 0 -> B input 0'), which enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 upstream inputs, downstream outputs, and common operator chains for a named operator, with connection port instructions. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_operator' (basic info) and 'get_operator_examples' (examples).

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 usage for wiring nodes but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'compare_operators') or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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