Get Connector

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it enumerates what is returned (status, sanitized settings, destinations/topics/consumer groups, revision, timestamps) and explicitly states credentials are never returned, which is a useful security-relevant guarantee.

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?

Bold-labeled Purpose/Returns/When-to-use sections make it front-loaded and scannable, with no filler. Slightly header-heavy for three short blocks, but every sentence carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by describing the return payload and the credential-exclusion behavior. Combined with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only deeper pagination/error semantics are unstated.

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 connectorId, cluster, and organization are all documented in the schema itself (connectorId even notes it comes from list-connectors/create-connector). The prose adds no further parameter detail, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one managed connector and its complete public configuration'). The scope word 'one' plus 'complete public configuration' implicitly separates it from list-connectors (many) and get-connector-metrics (metrics only), so an agent can route correctly.

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 'When to use' section gives a concrete trigger: inspect the latest connector before adding a destination or changing its status. This ties it to the add-connector-destination and set-connector-status workflows, though it does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives.

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