connection_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does useful work: it states the returned configuration fields, emphasizes that the secret is never revealed, and clarifies that reachability is current. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or whether authentication is required, but the informational verb and zero-parameter shape make the behavior clear.

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: it first says what the tool shows, then lists the relevant configuration fields, and ends with a useful security note. Every clause contributes information about the returned content or safety boundary.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return content, and it does by naming product, host, port, pairing, capabilities, and LightBurn reachability. It stops short of describing response structure or freshness guarantees beyond "right now," but it is otherwise complete for a simple zero-parameter info tool.

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?

There are zero input parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable in the usual sense. The empty schema is consistent with the description, and no parameter-level compensation is needed.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it "Shows how this server is configured" and enumerates the exact configuration fields returned. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling introspection tools such as get_status or get_state_snapshot.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent would call this when it needs server configuration, pairing state, capabilities, or current LightBurn reachability. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative such as get_status for broader state checks.

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