sigma_get_connection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as whether the returned details include sensitive information, whether the connection_id must refer to an existing connection, or any rate limits. It merely restates the basic retrieval action.

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 sentence and is succinct, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It contains minimal information beyond what the tool name conveys, offering little value to an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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 read operation, the description could still be adequate with more context. It lacks differentiation from sibling tools, does not clarify what 'details' includes, and omits usage guidance. The presence of an output schema partially covers return values, but the description still leaves significant gaps.

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 input schema has a single required parameter, connection_id, with zero description coverage. The description only implies that the parameter identifies the specific connection ('for a specific connection') but does not explain its format, how to obtain it, or any constraints. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema description.

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 identifies the operation as retrieving details for a specific connection, using the verb 'Get' and the resource 'connection'. It indicates a single resource by ID, which distinguishes it from listing all connections. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like sigma_list_connections or sigma_test_connection, so it misses the top score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for retrieving a single connection by ID, nor does it contrast with listing connections or testing connections. There is no context about prerequisites or when this operation is appropriate.

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