fabric_connector_get

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

The description is exceptionally transparent about behavioral traits beyond any structured annotations: it explains that 4xx/5xx responses are returned as status rather than raised, that host resolves through the Registry, that the server substitutes site placeholders, and that credential-redaction occurs in the body. It also lists validation restrictions on paths and namespaces, which are critical for an escape-hatch tool.

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 thorough and front-loads the core mechanism before parameter details. It is somewhat long, but virtually every sentence contributes necessary operational or security context; the only minor reduction would be trimming redundancy in the namespace list.

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?

Given a complex escape-hatch tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and a variety of route scenarios, the description fully covers invocation requirements, validation guardrails, return shape, and the parenthetical credential-redaction behavior. It leaves no ambiguity about required versus optional fields or when the tool should be chosen.

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?

The schema provides zero description coverage (0%), so the description must fully compensate; it does so with detailed semantics for host, path (including placeholder format and restrictions), site (conditional requirement), scope (cross-checking behavior), and params. It even gives concrete route examples and notes credential redaction in the return body.

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?

Clearly states it relays a GET through the official Fabric connector to a console's /proxy/<path>, explicitly identified as the escape hatch for controller-supported routes lacking typed tools. These details immediately distinguish it from typed siblings and the other fabric_connector_* verbs.

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?

Explicitly frames the tool as the fallback when no typed tool exists, reinforces that it is always available, and provides concrete path prefix examples that clarify its role relative to declarative siblings like get_site_inventory or get_network_application_info. It also conditions site usage on path placeholders, distinguishing when parameters are required.

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