fabricsGetFabricConnection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get' implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the connection doesn't exist. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence ('Get a specific connection.') with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loaded with the core action, though it could benefit from more detail given the lack of annotations.

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 the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'connection' is in this context, what data is returned, or any prerequisites. With no output schema and minimal description, it fails to provide enough context for effective use.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., fabricId as 'The fabric id or name', connectionId as 'The connection id, connections are not named', candidate for configuration). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 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?

The description 'Get a specific connection' clearly indicates a retrieval action ('Get') on a resource ('connection'), but it's vague about what type of connection (fabric-related) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like fabricsGetFabricConnections (plural) or fabricsAddFabricConnections. It states the basic purpose but lacks specificity.

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 versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention siblings like fabricsGetFabricConnections (for listing multiple connections) or fabricsDeleteFabricConnection, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone. There's no explicit context or exclusions.

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