describe_connector_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The brief wording implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state it, nor does it mention any side effects, permissions, error conditions, or details about the response format. This lack of transparency could mislead an agent about expectations.

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, clear sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the primary action and effectively conveys the core purpose within a compact structure.

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 tool with an output schema, the description is minimal but lacks contextual completeness. It does not explain how this tool fits among siblings or when to choose it over describe_inputs/describe_outputs. While the output schema can provide return details, the absence of usage guidance and parameter clarification leaves the agent under-informed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints at parameter meanings by mentioning 'input or output' (relevant to 'direction') and 'for a service' (relevant to 'service_name'). However, it does not explicitly specify allowed values for 'direction' or clarify that 'service_name' is a configured service identifier. The default value in the schema helps, but the description adds only partial semantic value.

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 tool's function: to describe the expected input or output connector payload schema for a service. It uses a specific verb ('Describe'), a resource ('connector payload schema'), and a scope ('for a service'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like describe_inputs/describe_outputs, though the term 'payload schema' implies a distinct focus.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another sibling tool would be more appropriate. This is a significant gap given the number of similar describe/list tools available.

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