Graphite: connection status and capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only; never changes the document.' It usefully discloses what the report contains (connection state, commit, available commands), though it adds little beyond what the annotations and output schema already guarantee.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the recovery instruction. Every clause carries actionable information with no filler.

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?

The output schema covers return values, annotations cover the safety profile, and the description supplies the diagnostic trigger and scope. Nothing needed to invoke this zero-arg tool correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no argument syntax an agent needs to interpret. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter details for a call that accepts none.

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 names a specific verb and resource set: it reports tab connectivity, the running Graphite commit, and available commands. This diagnostic role is clearly distinguishable from sibling mutation tools like graphite_insert_svg or graphite_transform_layer.

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?

It gives an explicit invocation trigger: 'Call this first if another graphite_* tool returned GRAPHITE_NOT_CONNECTED.' This is a precise when-to-use rule tied to a named error condition, leaving nothing to inference.

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