get_connection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), implying non-destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID is invalid), authentication needs, rate limits, or return format. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise at 4 words, front-loaded with the core action, and has zero wasted words. It efficiently communicates the basic purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 1 parameter with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'connection' is, how to obtain IDs, what data is returned, or error cases, making it inadequate for effective tool use in this 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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. It mentions 'by ID' which clarifies the parameter's purpose, but doesn't explain what a 'conn_id' is (e.g., format, source, or constraints), failing to compensate for the low 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 'Get a connection by ID' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('connection'), but it's vague about what a 'connection' entails in this context. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_connections' by specifying retrieval by ID rather than listing, but lacks specificity about the connection type or system.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid connection ID), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'list_connections' for browsing or 'test_connection' for validation.

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