Get connection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds a meaningful guarantee that secrets are never returned, which goes beyond the tool title. It does not mention not-found behavior or authentication requirements, but for a single-connection getter, the core safe-read behavior is sufficiently transparent.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the action, scope, and an important behavioral caveat with no wasted words. Every element carries signal.

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 one-parameter get operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential call context: what resource, how to identify it, and what not to expect (secrets). It is slightly thin on return structure and error cases, but those are minor for this tool's simplicity.

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 description references connection_id but adds no semantic detail beyond the schema's required uuid property. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description could compensate more by explaining how the ID relates to connections_list results or what format to expect, but the single parameter is self-explanatory enough to avoid a lower score.

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 opens with a specific verb and object ('Returns details of a single connection') and clearly identifies the selecting parameter ('by connection_id'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like connections_list, which would cover multiple connections, and connection_test, which has a different purpose.

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 appropriate use: call when you have a specific connection_id and want that connection's details. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives such as connections_list for enumerating connections or connection_test for checking connectivity, leaving sibling differentiation mostly implicit.

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