forcepoint_connection_info

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

Explicitly labels itself 'Read-only', which is a key behavioral disclosure. It also enumerates the content areas (runtime defaults, auth model, docs, persistence wiring), providing useful context beyond the tool name. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden and does so reasonably well.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the verb 'Return'. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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-parameter info tool with no output schema, the description gives a clear overview of the return content across four categories. It could detail the exact structure or field names, but it is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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, so schema coverage is complete and there are no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline 4 applies for zero-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?

Description uses specific verb 'Return' and clearly specifies the resource scope: Forcepoint MCP runtime defaults, authentication model, docs references, and persistence wiring. This distinguishes it from siblings like forcepoint_connection_config_get/set.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are mentioned. The description implies it is for retrieving connection info, but it does not compare with forcepoint_connection_config_get, forcepoint_scope_info, or forcepoint_health_check.

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