ea_get_connectors

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, and the description adds useful behavioral context by explaining the structure of returned connectors (source/dest ends) and feature links. This goes beyond the annotation, though it does not disclose potential edge cases like number of results or error behavior, which are not critical for a read-only tool.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and then adds essential structural detail without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 that there is no output schema, the description adequately describes the return structure (connectors with source/dest and feature links). It does not mention filtering effects of parameters, but these are documented in the schema. For a simple read-only tool, the description provides sufficient context for correct 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter definitions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some semantics by explaining 'connectors' and mentioning concrete types like 'Realisation' and 'Dependency', which align with connectorType, but it does not significantly elaborate on the parameters themselves beyond what schema already provides.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'connectors' for a given element, specifying it lists relationships and their types. It distinguishes from siblings like ea_get_element by focusing on connected relationships, making its purpose 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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The purpose implies it is for relationship retrieval, but without explicit routing guidance, the agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling context.

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