get_connection_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly signals a read-only operation via the verb 'Get' and lists the returned information categories. It does not address error handling or side effects, but for a simple getter this is acceptable.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and efficiently lists the key content areas without unnecessary words.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description outlines the main information categories, giving sufficient context for an agent to decide to use it. It stops short of describing the exact return format or error behavior, but the tool's simplicity reduces the need for more.

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 input schema provides a complete description for the single parameter, including an example, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already offers.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'detailed information for a specific connection.' It enumerates the content categories (config, status, sync state, schedule), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_connections, get_connection_schema, and get_sync_status.

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 clearly implies usage for retrieving details on a single, known connection, contrasting with listing operations. However, it does not explicitly reference alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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