get_connection_info

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

The description states it returns data, but without annotations, it does not disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, authorization requirements, or side effects. The description is accurate but minimal.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. No unnecessary words, highly concise.

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 no output schema, the description explains what is returned at a high level. However, it does not detail the structure or format of 'connection details', which may leave the agent uncertain about the return value.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by specifying what is returned ('WebSocket connection details' and 'scratch URL'), which the empty schema does not convey.

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 indicates the tool returns connection details and a scratch URL. The verb 'Returns' and specific resources ('WebSocket connection details', 'scratch URL') provide good purpose clarity. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'open_colab_browser_connection'.

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 mentions the use case 'for manually connecting a browser', giving some context. But it lacks guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives, such as the sibling 'open_colab_browser_connection'.

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