context_status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Check' is consistent with a read-only operation. The description adds the scope 'ContextECF MCP facade readiness' but does not disclose what readiness means, whether it performs network calls, or what the returned status indicators are. For a simple status check, this is acceptable but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It states the action and the target clearly, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough information for a basic status/readiness call. The main gap is the lack of detail about what a successful response looks like or what 'readiness' specifically measures, but the simplicity of the tool reduces the need for extensive context.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema confirms an empty object with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because there are none to explain.

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 uses a clear verb ('Check') and identifies the resource ('ContextECF MCP facade readiness'), which aligns with the tool name and the annotated title 'Check connector status'. It is reasonably specific, though 'readiness' is slightly vague and does not explicitly distinguish from siblings by name, but none of the sibling names suggest a status/readiness function.

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 an agent wants to verify whether the ContextECF MCP facade is ready or its status. However, it does not provide explicit guidance about prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like context_assemble or context_evidence.

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