get_connector

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Get' implies a read, but it says nothing about permissions, behavior when the connector or board does not exist, or whether deleted connectors are retrievable. An output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere, but the operational profile is left blank.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the parenthetical scoping the returned data. Nothing is wasted, though the extreme terseness is part of why other dimensions are thin.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema and self-describing ID params, the description is minimally sufficient to call it correctly. It is missing the routing information an agent needs to pick it over list_connectors and any note about failure behavior for a bad connector_id.

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 0%, so the description was expected to compensate, yet it mentions neither board_id nor connector_id. The parameter names are largely self-explanatory (both required string IDs), which limits the damage, but no format, scope, or relationship between the two IDs is clarified.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get one connector') and enumerates the returned facets (start/end items, captions, style), which clearly separates it from list_connectors, update_connector, and delete_connector. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, but the singular 'one' plus the connector_id requirement makes the scope 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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus list_connectors (to enumerate) or update_connector (to modify), and no prerequisites such as needing a valid board/connector pair. The only guidance is implicit in the word 'one', which requires the agent to infer that it must already know a connector_id.

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