sigma_get_api_connector

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., error handling, permissions, or response format), but neither does it contradict the annotations. Given the annotations, the minimal description is acceptable.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. Every part ('Get', 'details', 'API connector') contributes to the core meaning.

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?

With an output schema present and a simple read-only operation, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it omits any guidance on when this tool should be selected over similar 'get' tools, and does not mention that it retrieves a specific connector by ID, which is already obvious from the parameter. For a tool with a rich sibling set, a bit more context would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not elaborate on 'connector_id' beyond the parameter name. It does not explain how to obtain it, its format, or its purpose, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone. For a single self-explanatory parameter, the lack of added semantics is a minor but real gap.

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 'Get details for an API connector' uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('API connector'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'sigma_list_api_connectors' which lists connectors. It accurately conveys the tool's function.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'sigma_list_api_connectors' or 'sigma_get_connection'. The description does not state any prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage.

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