get_connection_server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operationhint, but the description does not state any side effects, authorization requirements, or edge-case behavior (e.g., what happens when the server_id does not exist). It is not contradictory, but it is thin for a tool with no annotation support.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; the key scoping phrase 'configuration details' and 'specific' are front-loaded. Nothing extraneous.

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 single-ID fetch with an output schema, minimal context is acceptable, but the description does not mention how the ID is obtained or distinguish from listing/health siblings. There is no annotation safety profile, so a sentence noting this is read-only or linking to list_connection_servers would round it out.

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%: the only parameter server_id is documented as 'Connection server ID'. The description adds the meaning that the tool returns configuration details for that server, but otherwise relies on the schema. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('configuration details for a specific Connection Server'), and the qualifier 'specific' distinguishes it from the list_connection_servers sibling. It does not explicitly name the sibling, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 implies when to use it (when you need details for one specific Connection Server, not a list), but it gives no explicit guidance about alternatives such as list_connection_servers or health-related tools. There are no exclusions or prerequisites.

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