Get Connection

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

Annotations already cover the read-only and non-destructive nature, so the description carries a lighter burden. It usefully adds that the fetch is scoped to the authenticated account's connection list, but it does not describe behavior for missing IDs, errors, or returned payloads.

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 sentence with no filler: it conveys the action, the resource, the uniqueness of the result, the lookup key, and the authentication scope. This is appropriately compact and front-loaded.

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 get-by-id operation, the description, combined with the full input schema, output schema, and read-only annotations, provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly. Error behavior and response details are not essential here given the output schema and low complexity.

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%, so all four parameters, including connectionId, baseUrl, profile, and frontendUrl, are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that connectionId is the lookup key but adds no extra parameter-level semantics.

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?

States a specific verb ('Fetch'), resource ('Cloudeval connection'), and selection criterion ('by id'). 'One' clearly distinguishes this from a list operation, and the sibling connections_list is implicitly differentiated.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you already have a connectionId and need that single connection. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer connections_list or other alternatives, so the agent must infer routing from sibling names.

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