get_connection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. 'Get details' clearly signals a read-only operation, but no other behavior is disclosed (e.g., whether the call may fail if the ID doesn't exist, or if any remote fetch is involved). The description is not misleading, but it provides minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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 one concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and subject. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy. It is optimally sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description gives the caller the essential information: what it does and the key parameter. However, it does not explicitly state what is returned ('details' is vague) or error behavior if the ID is not found. This is adequate but not comprehensive, especially given the absence of an output schema.

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 has one required parameter 'id' with no description coverage. The description says 'by id', which clarifies that the parameter refers to the connection identifier, adding meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not elaborate on the source or format of the ID, or what happens for invalid IDs. Minimal but sufficient for this single-parameter tool.

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 a specific operation: 'Get details' with resource 'single connection by id'. This distinguishes it from list_connections, which would return multiple. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the resource and single entity modifier make the purpose unambiguous.

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 instruction 'single connection by id' implies use when you have a specific connection ID and need its details, versus list_connections for all connections. This is an implied usage context, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are given. It is adequate but not as strong as naming the alternative.

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