get_connection_string

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It accurately discloses the tool's read-only nature (retrieving a string) and implies a prerequisite ('running instance'). However, it does not explicitly state it has no side effects or mention potential errors (e.g., instance not found), which would elevate the score further.

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 exceptionally concise with two sentences that front-load the purpose and usage context. Every phrase adds value without redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool returns, the protocol, and a typical use case. Minor improvement would be to mention the exact return format (string) and potential errors.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage on the single parameter, including a description ('UUID of the instance'). The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves a Redis/Valkey connection string for a running instance, specifying the protocol (redis:// URL). This is a specific verb-resource pair that differentiates it from sibling tools like cache operations or session management.

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 provides a clear use case ('configure your application or set environment variables') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. Since no sibling tools serve a similar purpose, this is adequate minimal guidance.

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