service_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. It implies a read-only operation by using 'Return', but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, does not require authentication, or what happens on failure. The description is adequate for a simple info retrieval but lacks explicit behavioral guarantees.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Return') and the resource. There is no fluff or repetition. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for a simple 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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description is the only source of what the agent can expect. It states the tool returns 'connection details', but does not specify the structure or content of those details (e.g., URLs, status, authentication info). This is a notable gap for an agent that needs to parse the result. For a 0-param tool, it is adequate but not rich enough to fully prepare the agent for the response format.

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 0 parameters, and the schema is empty. According to the rubric, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds nothing about parameters because there are none, and no additional semantics are needed. This is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 clearly states the tool returns connection details for MCP server and target service, using the verb 'Return' and specifying a distinct resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like service_scope_info or service_list_endpoints beyond the term 'connection details', which is somewhat generic. It is clear but lacks explicit differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or alternative tools. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and the generic description, which is insufficient for making an informed selection among the listed siblings.

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