Get connector config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds a meaningful note that secret values are redacted, which is important for interpreting results, but it does not mention other behaviors such as failure modes if the connector does not exist or whether this is a strictly read-only operation.

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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It communicates the core result in the first sentence and an important caveat in the second.

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 single-parameter getter, the description is reasonably complete: it explains that the result is the configuration map and flags secret redaction. The lack of an output schema means some return-format detail would have been useful, but the existing text covers the critical information.

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 parameter 'name' is already documented as a connector name. The description adds no additional detail beyond that, so the baseline score 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 title and description clearly indicate that the tool returns a connector's configuration map, which distinguishes it from the sibling tools that return connector lists, status, or topics. However, it does not explicitly contrast with get_connector, which could also retrieve connector details.

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 select this tool over the sibling tools. The description simply states what it returns, leaving the agent to infer that it should be used when the connector's configuration map is needed.

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