connection_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose two meaningful traits: it is local-only and does not contact APIs (so no side effects, no network latency, no auth requirements), and its output does not expose credentials. It does not describe the shape or content of the returned status.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the key behavioral constraint. No filler, though the extreme brevity borders on under-specification for a tool with no output schema.

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-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool the description is adequate on safety and scope, but it never says what the status actually contains (e.g. whether it reports connectivity, credential presence, or config validity). Without an output schema, some indication of the return content would be expected.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The 'additionalProperties: false' empty schema is self-explanatory and needs no prose support.

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 resource and scope: local configuration status, with the qualifier that it reads local config rather than contacting services. An agent can tell it apart from the API-calling siblings (cloudflare_call, dokploy_call) by the explicit 'local' framing. It is slightly less clear about which connection/component the status pertains to, which keeps it from a 5.

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 line 'Does not contact APIs' implicitly routes the agent here when it wants status without network calls, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no sibling named as an alternative. Usage must be inferred from the exclusion rather than stated.

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