get_connections

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

The description opens with '[READ ONLY],' which is a useful behavioral disclosure since no annotations are provided. It makes clear the tool is non-mutating, but it does not add further behavioral context such as what kinds of connections are returned or whether it operates on the currently active model. The output schema likely covers return structure, so this is adequate but minimal.

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 extremely short and front-loads the read-only nature of the tool. There is no wasted text, though the wording is so generic that it sacrifices clarity. Still, as far as length and structure go, it is 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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values, but it still fails to give enough context to select it among many similar getters. 'Inspect Mechanical model data' is too generic to tell the agent that this tool is specifically about connections, especially with siblings like get_model_summary and get_geometry_bodies present.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter information missing. The description does not need to add semantics for parameters that do not exist, and the baseline for no parameters is 4.

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 says 'Inspect Mechanical model data,' which is vague and does not mention 'connections' at all. It uses a generic verb and an overly broad resource, so an agent cannot tell that this tool returns connection-related data rather than general model data. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_model_summary or get_tree.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus any of the many sibling inspection tools. The phrase 'Inspect Mechanical model data' implies a read operation but provides no context, exclusions, or alternatives.

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