validate_resolve_connection

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

The description mentions the tool does not change Resolve state, providing a non-destructive guarantee. However, with no annotations, it could elaborate on what happens if the connection is down, error conditions, or any prerequisites.

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 wasted words. Every word serves a purpose.

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, parameterless tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose and non-mutating behavior adequately. It could be slightly more complete by suggesting when to use it (e.g., before other operations), but not necessary.

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 has zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter meaning beyond the empty schema. Per rubric, baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 the tool checks the live Resolve API connection without changing state. It uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('live Resolve API connection'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'connect_to_resolve' which likely modifies the 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 implies usage for verifying connection status without side effects, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'connect_to_resolve' or other validation tools. No exclusions or conditions are provided.

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