connection_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. With zero annotations, the description should at least mention whether this is a read-only operation, what it returns, or whether it makes network calls. 'Get detailed information' implies read-only, but nothing about the behavior, error conditions, or what 'detailed' means is disclosed.

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?

It's a single sentence with zero wasted words. No redundancy or filler. However, it's arguably under-specified rather than concise — there's very little substance to its brevity.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is quite thin. It doesn't state what information is returned (configuration, status, metrics), what happens with an invalid connectionId, or how it relates to the ecosystem of connection management tools. Given the sibling tools (import/export/connect/remove/test connections), this tool could use more context about where it fits.

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%, meaning the one parameter (connectionId) is documented in the schema as 'ID of the connection to get info for.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema — it just repeats 'get info.' The description doesn't clarify what format connectionId should take (UUID, name, etc.) or whether it must correspond to an existing connection.

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 it 'gets detailed information about a specific connection,' which is a clear verb+resource. However, it doesn't differentiate itself from sibling tools like list_connections (which presumably lists connections) or connect_broker. The phrase 'detailed information' is vague — what kind of detail? Status, configuration, statistics?

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's no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It's not clear how this differs from list_connections (all connections vs one) or system_status/broker_info. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned. The only clue is 'specific' in the tool name itself, which is in structured data, not the description.

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