x_connection_info

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Return' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't explicitly state that there are no side effects, nor does it mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential errors. The list of returned information adds some transparency, but it is not comprehensive.

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 that lists all information categories without redundancy or unnecessary detail. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

The description enumerates what the tool returns, but terms like 'inventory source' and 'auth-gate state' are not defined, and no return format is mentioned. Given the lack of an output schema, this introduces some ambiguity, but the overall context is adequate for a zero-parameter diagnostic 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The description adds value by detailing the output categories, which is the relevant semantic content for this tool. Baseline 4 applies for 0-parameter tools.

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 the specific verb 'Return' and enumerates the exact categories of information (runtime metadata, inventory source, Postgres/Vault connection settings, auth-gate state), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like x_health_check or x_config_list.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as x_health_check or x_config_get. The description only states what it returns, with no mention of use cases or exclusions.

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