get_cni_interconnect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it offers almost none. 'Get details' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose what details are returned, what happens on a nonexistent ID, permission requirements, or any side effects. The description essentially restates what the tool name already conveys.

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 a single sentence with zero filler and the verb front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple get-by-id tool. It is slightly lean, bordering on under-specification, but structurally it is efficient and readable.

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 two-parameter get-by-id tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps. It does not indicate the shape or scope of the returned details, nor does it connect the tool to sibling list_cni_interconnects for discovering the ID. The schema covers parameters, but the absence of output schema and behavioral context leaves the agent with only a vague sense of what success looks like.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('The account ID' and 'The interconnect ID'). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which matches the baseline of 3. The parameter descriptions are terse but sufficient for simple ID lookup.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get details of a Cloud Network Interconnect.' It clearly identifies the target resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_cni_settings and list_cni_slots by naming the interconnect resource itself. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely related list_cni_interconnects, leaving the get-versus-list distinction implicit.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that interconnect_id might be obtained from list_cni_interconnects first, nor does it clarify when get_cni_settings or list_cni_slots would be more appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage context entirely.

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