get_connection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about whether sensitive fields (passwords, extra JSON) are returned or masked, whether a missing connection raises an error, or whether access is permission-gated. The word 'Gets' weakly implies a read-only operation, but that is inference rather than disclosure.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by a single parameter note. No waste or filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape is covered elsewhere, and the single required parameter is named. However, for a secrets-bearing resource in Airflow, the absence of any note on masking or not-found behavior leaves a meaningful gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add useful meaning by specifying the parameter is an 'Exact Airflow connection identifier' (exact match, identifier semantics), but it stops short of format examples or case sensitivity rules.

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?

States a specific verb ('Gets') and resource ('details for a specific connection'), which clearly differentiates it from list_connections and the create/update/delete_connection siblings. The purpose is unambiguous, though there is no explicit sibling callout.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'a specific connection' signals single-item retrieval versus the list variant, but the description never states when to use this over list_connections or what to do if the ID is unknown. No exclusions or prerequisites are offered.

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