get_connection_table

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

The readOnlyHint annotation indicates a safe read operation, but the description adds no extra behavioral details (e.g., data scope, pagination, or permissions). It neither contradicts the annotation nor provides meaningful additional context.

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 extremely concise with no wasted words, but it is a fragment rather than a complete sentence. It earns a high score for brevity but lacks a structured explanation.

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 zero-parameter read-only getter with an output schema, the description is minimally viable. It lacks any usage context or clarification about what 'connection table' refers to, but the output schema may compensate for return value details.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema covers everything. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description need not add parameter details.

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 states a clear 'get' operation for the connection/flow table, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_routing_table and list_connection_limits. However, the phrasing '获取流表/连接查看' is terse and could be more explicit about what the table contains (e.g., active sessions or NAT entries).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Among the many get_* and list_* siblings, there is no context or comparison to help an agent select this tool selectively.

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