get_connection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations by disclosing that sensitive fields are masked and that both schema_cache and semantic_cache are included in the response.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause adds meaningful information: the action, the returned object, sensitive-field masking, and the included caches.

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?

With one required parameter, clear read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description provides enough for an agent to call the tool correctly and understand the response contents. It lacks explicit error-handling details and alternative routing, but neither is essential for this simple retrieval operation.

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 only parameter, connection_id, already has a complete schema description ('UUID da conexão') with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Retorna detalhes de uma conexão', and enumerates what is included (configuration, schema_cache, semantic_cache). It is clearly a single-connection read operation, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_connection_schema or get_connection_semantic.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The singular resource and read-only annotations imply use when needing full connection details, with list_connections as the obvious listing alternative, but this is left to inference.

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