get_cloud_connect_supported_features

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's behavioral disclosure is minimal beyond restating the query intent. It does not add details like error handling, rate limits, or side effects, but the safety profile is already clear from annotations.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary use case. Every sentence adds value—purpose, input format, output summary—without redundancy or verbosity.

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 read-only tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers the required information: what it does, what input to provide, and what the response contains. No gaps are evident.

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 describes accountID with type string and a basic description, but the tool description adds crucial semantic detail: it accepts both AWS account IDs and Azure tenant IDs. This clarification goes beyond the schema and helps the agent correctly populate the parameter.

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 states the tool's purpose: to check supported DoiT CloudConnect features and permission status for a given cloud account. It specifies the input (AWS account ID or Azure tenant ID) and output (list with permission status). This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings.

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?

The description begins with 'Use this when the user wants to know...', providing clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the use case is well-defined and no sibling tool covers the same functionality, making the guideline sufficient.

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