Describe a connector's operations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior beyond the schema: the fetch-or-cache semantics, the cache location (.cs-catalog/<environment>/connectors/<name>.json), and the MCP-capable marking. It does not mention auth/permission requirements for the credentialed paths, but for a read-oriented describe tool this is solid 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?

Front-loads the core action and then packs output shape, MCP marking, consumer relationship, and cache path into a tight two-sentence block. Dense but every clause earns its place; no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns, and it does (operationId, parameters, response fields). Combined with the cache path and the cs_add_tool/cs_validate relationships, it is complete enough for an agent to call a read tool with one required parameter.

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 coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters (clientId, tenantId, workspace, environmentId defaults). The description adds only the caching angle behind 'refresh' and does not explain filter semantics for 'operation' or 'includeInternal', so it sits at the baseline where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource (fetch a connector's OpenAPI definition) and precisely enumerates the output (operationId, parameters with required/type/description, response fields). It differentiates from siblings like cs_list_connectors by scoping to a connector's operations, and flags the MCP-capable marker (x-ms-agentic-protocol).

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?

"Exactly what cs_add_tool needs" gives a clear when-to-use anchor and the cs_validate relationship adds context. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use conditions or naming an alternative describe tool, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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