Get connector

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false/openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations by disclosing that secret config values are redacted in the response, which prevents an agent from assuming secrets are retrievable.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the payload scope comes first and the redaction caveat second, both of which earn their 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?

With no output schema, the description takes on some responsibility for describing returns, and it does name the two returned sections (config + tasks) plus the redaction caveat. It could say more about what a connector name resolves to or failure behavior, but it is adequate for a simple read tool whose annotations cover the rest.

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?

There is a single parameter (name) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries its meaning. The description adds nothing about name format, resolution, or lookup behavior, so the baseline 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 gives a specific verb+resource (get a connector) and clarifies the scope of the payload (config + tasks), which meaningfully differentiates it from the narrower get_connector_config and get_connector_status siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'Full connector info (config + tasks)' suggests this is the broad fetch to use when you want everything in one call, versus the partial getters among the siblings. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative.

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