get_connection_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that pairing is persistent and the URL can be bookmarked, which helps set expectations. However, it doesn't describe the exact output format or whether the QR code/URL expire, so there is still a moderate gap.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose. The long trigger-phrase list is useful but somewhat repetitive; however, it is directly actionable for an agent.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides a solid context: when to call it and what to expect in terms of persistent pairing. It stops short of detailing the response fields or security considerations, but the overall guidance is sufficient for straightforward invocation.

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 naturally cannot add parameter detail. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adequately explains what to do with the connection info, which is sufficient.

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's function: getting the PassPaper tablet connection URL and QR code image. It uses specific verbs and resources, and the trigger phrase list distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with handwriting or session data.

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 explicitly says to call this FIRST when the user mentions specific phrases and provides a list of trigger examples. It also conveys that it is the initial connection step, not a handwriting or session operation, which helps an agent choose it over siblings.

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