tigergraph__show_connection

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the read-only nature and the non-sensitive scope, but does not mention error cases (e.g., unknown profile) or exact output shape. The core behavior is transparent enough.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope. The second sentence adds a crucial safety qualifier without redundancy. No wasted words.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description lists what will be shown and what will not be shown, which covers the main expectations. It doesn't detail format or failure behavior, but for a simple 'show' command this is reasonably complete in context.

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 single parameter 'profile' is fully described, including the default behavior when omitted (active profile from env var or 'default'). This removes all ambiguity about parameter usage.

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?

Purpose is explicit: show non-sensitive connection details for a specific profile. It enumerates the included fields (host, username, graph name, ports) and clearly states it never reveals passwords or tokens, removing ambiguity.

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 implies when to use it (to inspect a specific profile's connection details) and highlights the safety guarantee (no secrets), but does not explicitly contrast with list_connections or other alternatives. Still, the guidance is sufficient for most agents.

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