check_connection

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states '仅做只读查询，不会修改 .hip 文件、节点或网络' (read-only, no modification to .hip, nodes, or networks), fully disclosing its non-destructive nature. It also details the return structure, which is strong behavioral disclosure.

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 concise but information-dense: it states the purpose, lists all return fields, notes structural consistency with server.py, declares read-only behavior, and gives usage timing. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The return fields and read-only nature are well documented, which covers most of what an agent needs for a diagnostic tool. However, the unexplained 'ctx' parameter is a notable gap, and there is no mention of potential errors or whether an active Houdini session is required. Overall, it is complete for the simple purpose but not perfect.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the required 'ctx' parameter at all. This is a single required parameter with no semantic guidance, so the agent cannot know what value to pass. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema information.

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 Houdini connection information and lists the exact fields returned (hou_version, hip_file, etc.), giving a specific verb+resource. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like ping_houdini, but the unique return fields and 'read-only' scoping make its purpose distinct enough.

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 explicitly recommends calling this tool 'once at the beginning of a long session' to get Houdini version and scene scale, providing clear usage context. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the timing guidance is valuable.

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