get_internet_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. It discloses the tool's behavior (getting detail or log) but lacks information on behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, potential side effects, or error handling beyond the warning. The warning about not fabricating data adds some transparency but overall is minimal.

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 sentence plus a clear warning. Every part is essential: the main action, the optional alternate mode, and the critical usage constraint. No wasted words.

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 tool has 2 well-documented parameters with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate for understanding what the tool does and its modes. However, it lacks completeness for the 'log' mode (e.g., date filtering, log format) and does not describe the output structure. Since there is no output schema, more context would be beneficial.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., the 'include' enum values or 'connection_id' format). Thus it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 it gets detailed information about an internet connection or its change log. The verb 'Get' and the resource 'internet connection' are specific, and the description distinguishes the two retrieval modes ('detail' vs. 'log'). It stands out from siblings like get_tv_connection or list_internet_connections which serve different purposes.

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 explicitly warns against fabricating data and instructs to report errors to the user, which is a clear when-not usage guideline. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus sibling tools like list_internet_connections (which lists connections) or the various log tools, missing an opportunity for better guidance.

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