jumpcloud_connection_info

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the read-only nature and low risk, which is useful, but does not mention potential failure modes, return format, or any requirements (e.g., auth). This provides some behavioral context but 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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second provides usage guidance. There is 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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers key aspects: what it returns, when to use it, and what not to use it for. It could be slightly more explicit about the exact metadata fields, but the named items (base URLs, OpenAPI URLs, persistence) give adequate 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 coverage is trivially 100%. Per guidelines, 0 params receive a baseline of 4. The description adds context about what the metadata covers, which is sufficient.

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 identifies the tool as a source of read-only runtime metadata, specifically for base URLs, OpenAPI source URLs, and persistence wiring. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on connection-level info, though it lacks a direct action verb like 'get' or 'fetch'.

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 states when to use (validating configured URLs and persistence wiring) and explicitly says 'Do not use for API execution,' providing a clear excluding condition. However, it does not name alternative tools for API execution, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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