Get connector status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful content beyond that: the enumerable state values (RUNNING / PAUSED / FAILED) and the fact that worker assignment and failure traces are included. It does not, however, say what happens for an unknown connector name or whether the status is point-in-time.

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?

A single dense sentence fragment with no filler; the returned-state enumeration is front-loaded. It is terse and readable, though the fragment form means it never states the action, so it is not maximally effective structure.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description is doing double duty as a return-value summary, and it covers the main fields an agent would want. Combined with rich annotations, this is nearly sufficient for a single-parameter read tool; only the error case for an unknown connector is unaddressed.

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% with a single 'name' parameter documented as 'Connector name'. The description adds nothing about the parameter (e.g. exact-match semantics, case sensitivity). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully carries the parameter burden.

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 is a noun-phrase inventory of returned data (connector/task states, worker assignment, failure traces) rather than a verb+resource statement of what the tool does. The name and title carry the action ('Get connector status'), and the description does distinguish the content from siblings like get_connector_config or get_connector_topics, but it never explicitly says this retrieves the current status of a named connector.

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 statement of when to call this versus get_connector, get_connector_config, or list_connectors -- all of which smell like overlapping entry points. Usage is only implied by the tool name. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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