describe_inputs

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It adds that payload.inputNames is required and that the tool expects names from list_inputs, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, what happens for invalid names, or any error conditions, leaving notable gaps in transparency.

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 two sentences, directly front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word adds value. It avoids repetition and clearly conveys the essential information without any fluff.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. The tool is simple (one parameter), and the description covers the critical input requirement and the discovery step. The only notable gap is a minor inconsistency with the schema's nullable payload default, but the description itself is sufficiently complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 clearly identifies the required key 'inputNames' within the payload and explains its purpose, which is essential. It could go further by specifying the expected type (e.g., array) or format, but the provided guidance adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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: describing one or more input connectors by name. It uses a specific verb ('Describe') and resource ('input connectors'), and distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_inputs by indicating names come from a prior listing.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'payload.inputNames is required' and instructs users to 'call list_inputs first to discover names'. This is a clear prerequisite that aids in correct invocation, though it does not mention when not to use the tool or alternatives beyond the implied listing step.

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