get_connector_swagger

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

No annotations provided. Description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or prerequisites (e.g., connector must exist). For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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?

Two sentences, first directly states purpose with examples, second emphasizes importance. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key information. Excellent for a tool that may be used frequently.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain the return format (e.g., JSON OpenAPI spec). For a tool returning a complex structure, more detail on output would improve completeness. However, it is sufficient for its stated purpose of discovering action paths.

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 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds examples of connector names and location format, but these are already implied by the schema. No additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides, so baseline of 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 retrieves the OpenAPI/Swagger definition for a managed connector, with specific examples like msnweather, sql, etc. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_workflow_swagger by targeting connector definitions specifically for discovering action paths.

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 it is 'ESSENTIAL for discovering correct action paths when creating or updating workflows with connector actions,' providing clear when-to-use context. Does not mention when not to use, but the purpose is specific enough to differentiate.

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