Get connector config

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive. The description adds a genuinely new behavioral fact not present in the structured data: secret values in the returned map are redacted. It does not mention behavior for unknown connector names, but the redaction disclosure is meaningful added context.

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 sentences with zero filler, and the core return value is front-loaded before the redaction caveat. Nothing needs trimming.

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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers what is returned (a config map) and the important caveat (redacted secrets). Absent an output schema, more detail on the map's shape could help, but the essentials are present.

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% and there is a single 'name' parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline 3.

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 names the specific resource returned (the connector's configuration map) and implicitly a get operation, which separates it from get_connector_status, get_connector_topics, and list_connectors. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_connector, but the resource is clear enough for selection.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The agent must infer that this is called to inspect a named connector's settings rather than get_connector (metadata) or get_connector_status (health).

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