tigergraph__show_connection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description need not repeat that. It adds the valuable behavioral note that it 'Never reveals passwords or tokens,' which goes beyond the annotations and informs the agent about data safety. No contradiction with annotations; it complements them.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the action and scope, then adds the security caveat. There is no redundant wording, and every phrase earns its place. It is highly efficient.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter, an output schema is unnecessary, and annotations already cover safety. The description fully informs the agent about what is returned (non-sensitive details) and what is not, making it complete 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?

The schema description for the profile parameter is comprehensive (covers default behavior and environment variable), giving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond restating 'specific profile,' so it does not exceed the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action (Show), the resource (non-sensitive connection details), and the scope (a specific profile). It also lists the included fields (host, username, graph name, ports) and explicitly excludes sensitive data. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_connections, which might list all profiles, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'for a specific profile' implies when to use this tool (when you want details of one profile), but it does not mention alternatives or state when not to use it. There is no explicit guidance on choosing between this and list_connections or authenticate, so the usage context is implied but not fully explicit.

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