get_magic_transit_connector

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get details' merely restates the tool's function and adds nothing about response contents, permissions, error behavior, or operational constraints. It is safe to assume read-only, but the description does not explicitly confirm it.

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, focused sentence with no wasted words. The core action and resource are front-loaded, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 simple two-parameter GET operation, the description plus schema is minimally sufficient to attempt a call. However, with no output schema, the description does not explain what 'details' will be returned, nor does it distinguish this from the sibling list/get Magic Transit tools.

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 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which meets the baseline but does not elevate it.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'Magic Transit connector' and the modifier 'specific' to indicate this is a singular fetch rather than a list operation. It is clear enough to identify the tool, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from.

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 no guidance about when to use this tool versus list_magic_transit_connectors or how it differs from related get_* Magic Transit tools. The need for an account_id and connector_id is implied by the schema, but no usage context or alternatives are provided.

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