Get Connector Metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description goes further by disclosing that counters are cumulative and must be sampled twice to derive rates, and that applying/unavailable statuses carry an explanatory message. That is genuinely useful operational context beyond the structured fields, though permissions or required connector state are not mentioned.

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 Purpose/Returns/Interpretation structure is front-loaded and each block carries distinct information; the Returns enumeration is long but earns its place because no output schema exists. Slightly verbose but no filler sentences.

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 compensates by enumerating returned fields and explaining how to interpret cumulative counters and status messages. It stops short of covering prerequisites (e.g., whether the connector must be running) or auth needs, but is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, and the schema already documents cluster, connectorId (with provenance from list-connectors/create-connector), and organization. The description adds no syntax or format detail for these parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Read current health and runtime counters') plus scope ('for one connector and each destination'), which cleanly separates it from sibling get-connector (configuration) and list-connectors (enumeration). An agent can pick this tool without opening any schema.

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 scope wording implies when the tool is appropriate (runtime health of a single connector), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative for related needs such as get-connector or list-logs. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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