hex-get-data-connection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only retrieval but says nothing about required permissions, behavior when the UUID does not exist or is inaccessible, or what the returned details include. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin, though the read-only risk profile keeps it from being worse.

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 with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the operation, though it stops at the minimum rather than earning full marks with any routing or scope detail.

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 read tool with full schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: it gives no sibling differentiation and no hint about failure modes or returned detail. An agent can call it, but could mis-route to the list or edit siblings.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single dataConnectionId parameter already documents itself as 'The data connection UUID'. The description's 'by ID' adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Get), resource (data connection), and scope (single, by ID), which is unambiguous on its own. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like hex-list-data-connections, hex-edit-data-connection, or hex-update-data-connection-schema, which an agent must disambiguate by name alone.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus hex-list-data-connections (to enumerate) or the create/edit/update-schema siblings. The only implicit cue is 'single by ID', which covers the input format but not the selection context.

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