get_custom_connector_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates a read operation but doesn't mention any authentication requirements, potential size of the returned code, error conditions, or whether the source code is always available. The description is minimal and doesn't go beyond the literal statement.

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, direct sentence that immediately states the purpose and the key detail (block DSL). There is no filler, and the essential information is front-loaded.

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 tool with a single simple integer parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential information: it retrieves the source code of a custom connector by id. It names the return content type (block DSL). It lacks notes on error behavior or use cases, but given the simplicity of the operation, the description is mostly complete.

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 a single integer parameter 'id', and the description says 'by id', which adds minimal meaning by tying the id to the custom connector. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description could have clarified what the id refers to (e.g., the custom connector's unique identifier) and any constraints like must be positive. It only states the obvious.

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 the action ('Get the source code'), the specific resource ('custom connector'), and the key qualifier ('block DSL', 'by id'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_custom_connector, which presumably retrieves the full connector object rather than just the code.

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 like get_custom_connector, nor does it mention any prerequisites or excluded cases. There is no explicit routing to a sibling or indication of the distinct use case beyond the immediate action.

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