ea_get_connectors

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

Annotations already mark the tool readOnly, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: it explains the source/dest orientation rule for Generalization connectors, role fields that remove directional ambiguity, and feature links indicating attached attributes or operations. This materially helps an agent interpret results correctly.

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 compact yet dense, leading with the core action and then adding only the essential disambiguation rules. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

With no output schema present, the description compensates by explaining the key output fields (source, dest, role, feature links) and the connector orientation conventions. For a read-only relationship listing with three parameters, this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds value by showing how to use direction and connectorType together to achieve specific outcomes, and by clarifying Generalization source/dest semantics. It does not deeply elaborate on elementId, but the schema already defines it as Object_ID.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get all relationships (connectors) for a given element.' It clarifies what a connector entry contains (source, dest, type) and distinguishes this tool from element/package/diagram sibling tools by focusing on relationship traversal rather than element retrieval or search.

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 gives concrete use conditions: filter by connectorType and direction to list direct children via incoming Generalization or direct parents via outgoing Generalization. It cites the 'without a diagram' context, which points to when this tool is preferred, though it does not name a specific sibling alternative to use instead.

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