connection_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value by clarifying that checking status does not log in and does not mutate the viewer, which distinguishes a passive probe from a connect/login action. It does not disclose what the response contains, but the extra side-effect boundary earns credit beyond the annotations.

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 short sentences, the core purpose front-loaded and the side-effect caveat second. Every clause earns its place 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only probe with annotations covering safety, the description is essentially complete. The one gap is that no output schema exists and the description does not say what the check returns (e.g., a connected/disconnected boolean), so an agent cannot fully anticipate the result.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-wise the description could add, and it correctly does not invent any inputs.

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: checking whether the local Firestorm LEAP helper is connected. That is much more concrete than a tautology, but it does not differentiate itself from status-like siblings such as local_mesh_status or avatar_movement_status.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a preflight connectivity check, but no when-to-use or when-not condition is stated. The clause 'Does not log in or change the viewer' gives a partial negative scope by ruling out side effects, which is better than nothing but not a routing rule.

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