get_connection

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action and parameter. It does not mention return format, error behavior, or safety characteristics, leaving the agent without any insight into side effects or assumptions.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, achieving high conciseness. While it is under-specified, that is a completeness issue rather than a structure issue, so it earns a 4 for efficient phrasing.

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?

The tool has only one parameter and no output schema, so the description should clarify return value and edge cases. It does neither, leaving the agent unsure what the 'get' returns, what happens if no connection exists, or whether any additional context is needed. The description is minimal but incomplete for safe invocation.

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 only the type 'string' for app_id with zero description coverage. The description adds that the operation is 'by app_id' but does not explain the semantic meaning of app_id (e.g., what it identifies, format, or whether it is a required unique key), providing minimal value beyond the schema.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'connection', and specifies the lookup key 'app_id', making the primary action clear. It implicitly distinguishes from list_connections by indicating a specific fetch, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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 about when to use get_connection versus list_connections or other connection-related tools. The description merely restates the function name without context or exclusion criteria.

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