get_connector

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' and 'Shows', and it adds the useful behavioral detail that all properties and current values are returned and that property names are compatible with update_connector. However, it does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, nor does it mention any prerequisites or response format caveats.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second provides a concrete, actionable integration tip. Every sentence earns its place.

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 get tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, the content of the response (all properties and values), and how to use the result. It lacks explicit error handling or edge-case details, but given the simplicity, it is largely 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 input schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter connectorId with a clear description ('The unique identifier of the connector'). The tool description adds no additional parameter context (e.g., how to obtain the ID or any format constraints), so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Get detailed information about a specific Arc connector') and the scope ('shows all available properties and their current values'). This distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools like get_file, get_transaction, and the list_connectors tool that presumably provides an overview.

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 a clear context for use by stating that the response contains all property names and values, and it explicitly instructs the agent to use those property names directly in update_connector. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., list_connectors) or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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