describe_outputs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'describe', which suggests read-only behavior, but does not disclose what happens for unknown names, whether multiple names are accepted at once, or how the payload should be formed. The optional/null payload creates ambiguity about whether no payload describes all outputs.

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?

It is a single concise sentence with no redundant words, easy to parse.

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 tool with one optional payload and an output schema, the description leaves critical input semantics ambiguous. It doesn't explain what the payload should contain, how to identify outputs, or the effect of omitting it. The output schema covers returns, but not invocation details.

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 input schema has a single generic payload object with no documentation (0% coverage). The description adds only that describing happens 'by name', but doesn't specify the payload structure (e.g., an array of strings, an object with a names field).

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 (describe) and target (output connectors), with a specific constraint (by name), distinguishing it from list_outputs which presumably enumerates all outputs.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_outputs or describe_connector_schema. The phrase 'by name' implies the caller must know the connector names, but no exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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