Get connector status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what to expect, and it does mention returned content: states, workers, and failure traces. However, it does not disclose whether the call is read-only, how failures are represented, or any response shape/time behavior, so transparency is only partial.

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 compact and front-loads the key output concepts in one clear phrase. It wastes no words, though it reads as a fragment rather than a complete sentence and could have included a simple verb such as 'returns' without hurting brevity.

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 one-parameter status retrieval tool with a fully described parameter, the description covers the main output categories and gives no output schema. It is reasonably complete for basic use, but it stops short of explaining output shape, error behavior, or how this relates to get_connector, so a little more context would be useful.

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?

The input schema already documents the single name parameter completely with 'Connector name'. The description adds nothing about how this parameter is used or formatted, so it does not enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema's 100% coverage.

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 identifies the specific resource and content: connector/task states, worker assignment, and failure traces. It goes beyond a vague restatement and distinguishes the tool from sibling list_connector_plugins and cluster_info, though it does not explicitly contrast it with the closely related get_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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of get_connector, get_connector_config, or list_connectors. The description implies it is for status output, but it provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or decision criteria to help an agent select it confidently.

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