Debug the claude.ai connection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verbs 'check' and 'inspect' suggest read-only diagnostics, but the 'raw API path' option could be interpreted as an arbitrary request without explicitly noting that it is non-mutating. This leaves some ambiguity about whether any side effects could occur.

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 only two sentences, begins with the primary purpose, and then appends the optional behavior. Every sentence serves a clear function, and there is no redundant wording or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the single optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main behavior and the optional parameter's use case well. It implies the expected outputs (whether the key works, the resolved org id, and the raw response shape) without explicit formatting, which is acceptable for a debugging tool of this simplicity.

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 input schema already covers raw_path with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the purpose of the parameter: 'to inspect its shape when an endpoint changes,' which goes beyond the schema's simple example and helps the agent understand when to populate it.

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 opens with 'Check whether the session key works and which org id is resolved,' which is a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling conversation tools, which focus on managing conversations rather than debugging the underlying connection.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need to verify the session key or resolved org id, and optionally to inspect raw API responses when an endpoint changes. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks the full exclusion guidance needed for a 5.

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