get_connection_semantic

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

Annotations already establish that the operation is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining what the semantic cache represents and how the returned data is used, going beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and well-structured: it leads with the action, explains the purpose, and provides the return format in a clear example. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.

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 read-only retrieval tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies the return structure, the purpose of the cache, and the role in auto-routing, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 single parameter connection_id is already fully documented in the schema with type, format, and description, yielding 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, which corresponds to the baseline of 3 for fully covered schemas.

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 a specific verb ('Retorna'), a specific resource ('cache semântico de uma conexão'), and the exact contents (domains, keywords, business context). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_connection_schema by naming the semantic cache and its purpose in auto-routing.

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 clear context for when this tool is relevant: it explains that the semantic cache is used by auto-routing to select the correct data source. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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