conn_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add value by noting that the password is shown masked, which is a non-obvious behavioral detail. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, nor does it mention any side effects, permissions, or error behavior. The masking note is a positive but insufficient disclosure for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and a key behavioral note. There is zero wasted wording, and the structure is efficient for quick parsing.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is acceptable but minimal. It states the purpose and one notable behavior (password masking), but does not elaborate on what 'detalles' includes or any prerequisites. This is adequate for a basic get tool but leaves room for more detail.

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 fully describes the single 'name' parameter, with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add extra detail. The description's phrase 'de una conexion' aligns with the parameter, but it adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool retrieves connection details, with a specific verb (obtiene) and resource (detalles de una conexion). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like conn_list (which likely lists all connections) by focusing on a single connection's details, though it doesn't explicitly mention the 'name' parameter in the text.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like conn_list or conn_get. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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