check_connection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and external-interaction profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting that secrets are excluded and that token scopes are actively probed.

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 a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and includes the important caveat about secrets. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter diagnostic tool.

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 simple zero-parameter tool with read-only/open-world annotations and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers the main output content and the scope-probing behavior. It could be slightly richer about the returned format, but it is sufficient to call correctly.

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 are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and nothing in the description introduces ambiguity.

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 specific actions and resources: showing active configuration without secrets and probing token scopes. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from any sibling because no sibling appears to perform a similar connection/scope check.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, but the description and tool name imply diagnostic usage for inspecting configuration and token-scope behavior. The implied context is adequate but not fully spelled out.

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