getConnectionPageConfig

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

Discloses the tool is read-only, explains the managed/unmanaged behavior and its implications for source of truth, and describes the relationship with regenerateConnectionPageFile. No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden and does well.

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 well-structured with clear sections and uses bold for emphasis. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but still effective.

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?

Given one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, return shape, and behavioral implications. It also relates to sibling tools, making it complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 single parameter appPackage has a clear schema description (minLength, example). The tool description does not add extra semantics beyond what the schema provides. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 reads the per-project ExtentosConnectionPage config, specifies the return structure ({ managed, config }), and explains the managed flag. It distinguishes from sibling tools like setConnectionPageConfig and regenerateConnectionPageFile.

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?

Explicitly says when to use (inspect dashboard-driven config or before regenerateConnectionPageFile) and when not to use (to change, use setConnectionPageConfig). Provides clear usage context and alternatives.

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