peaka_get_connection_detail

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

The description discloses that 'the response shape varies by connection type — only the type field is guaranteed', which adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. While it doesn't cover other aspects like authorization or rate limits, the behavioral context about response variability is helpful for an agent.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, key behavioral note, and usage workflow. It is front-loaded with the main action, and no unnecessary words are present.

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 read-only get tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, how responses vary, and how to obtain required IDs. It is fully sufficient without over-explaining.

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 both parameters described. The description adds minimal extra semantics beyond the schema; it mentions how to obtain the connectionId via peaka_list_connections, but that is more usage guidance than parameter clarification. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get connection-specific configuration detail for a data source connection', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool peaka_list_connections by noting that the response shape varies by connection type. This is a clear and specific purpose.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use peaka_list_connections to discover the connectionId, and provides a workflow for projectId: if unknown, call peaka_list_projects and ask the user. It differentiates usage from other tools and gives decisive when-to-use guidance.

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