workiva_wdata_get_connection

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 behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get a Wdata connection', which adds no information beyond the tool name. There is no mention of error handling, read-only guarantees, authentication needs, or any side effects.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, with the action stated in the first sentence. It is well-structured with an Args section, but it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification. Nevertheless, for a single-parameter getter, the length is appropriate.

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?

Although an output schema exists (which covers return values), the description lacks any context about Wdata connections, when to use this tool, or how it relates to other connection-related tools. With no annotations and minimal description, the tool is not fully contextualized for an AI agent.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. The description only says 'connection_id: The connection ID', which merely restates the parameter name and type. It does not explain where to find the ID, its format, or any constraints, adding zero value over the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Wdata connection'), clearly indicating a read operation for a single connection. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'workiva_wdata_list_connections' by implying retrieval of a specific connection by ID, which is further clarified by the parameter.

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 'workiva_wdata_list_connections' or 'workiva_wdata_refresh_connection'. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or context in which this tool is preferred.

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