Cassette connection status

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

Annotations already cover the read-only safety profile, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the call waits briefly for a reconnect before returning, and it gates visibility of other tools. That latency and dynamic-tool-listing context is exactly the beyond-annotation detail an agent needs. It stops short of describing the result shape.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the blocking behavior, then the consequence for other tools. Every sentence adds information and nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining results, and it only implies a reachable/compatible verdict rather than stating what a failure looks like or whether it blocks. For a zero-parameter status probe this is close to sufficient, but not fully complete.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No misleading parameter claims are made.

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 and resource — checking whether the Cassette backend is reachable and compatible — and adds the scope of what 'compatible' means operationally (editing tools only listed while connected). An agent can tell exactly what this tool answers without opening anything else.

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 implies when this is useful by explaining that the editing tools only appear while the backend is connected, so an agent missing those tools can infer it should call this. However, there is no explicit 'call this when X' instruction or named alternative, so usage remains inferred rather than stated.

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