Get connection info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable security context beyond those annotations: only user names are returned, and passwords 'live in Secrets and are never returned.' This is a meaningful behavioral disclosure.

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 a single sentence that immediately states the resource (cluster connection endpoints) and the key detail about passwords. Every phrase earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 appropriately explains the return values: hosts, port, and user names. It covers the main information an agent needs. It could slightly expand on format or default context/namespace behavior, but the schema already handles defaults, so the absence is not a major gap.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for name, context, and namespace. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents all parameters clearly.

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 clearly specifies what the tool returns: connection endpoints for a cluster, including primary/replica Service hosts, port, and declared users. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_cluster_status or list_clusters, which target different information.

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 implied by the phrase 'Connection endpoints for a cluster' — an agent would infer this is for retrieving connection details. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_cluster or get_cluster_status, and no exclusions are mentioned.

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