connection_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully reveals precedence behavior (Environment > .env > saved connection), and 'Show' implies read-only, but it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects or how it behaves on failure.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence. The second paragraph adds useful situational context but uses rhetorical framing that is slightly longer than necessary; still, the description remains compact and readable.

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-argument diagnostic tool with an output schema, the description covers what the tool reports and why it matters. It does not enumerate output fields, but that is appropriately delegated to the output schema.

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 and 100% schema description coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies because parameter semantics are fully handled by the empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Show') and resource: the currently connected book and the winning config. This clearly differentiates it from generic status tools by focusing on which configuration won.

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?

Gives a clear diagnostic trigger: use when something looks wrong and you need to know which configuration was selected. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like book_status, but the situational context is strong enough for an agent to select it.

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