check_connection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: credentials are never returned, which tells the agent the output is safe to surface. It says nothing about failure behavior or what a failed connection check looks like, so it adds context but not rich detail.

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?

A single tight sentence with the credential-safety clause placed after the core purpose, so the operation is front-loaded. No filler, though "dedicated login session" is slightly vague phrasing.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description is the only place a caller could learn what a successful or failed check returns (status, error signaling). It covers scope and the credential guarantee but leaves the return contract unstated, which is a real gap for a 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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantic burden and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies.

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 names a specific verb ("Check") and resource ("Moodle connection and dedicated login session"), which is a diagnostic/health-check operation distinct from the sibling tools (list_courses, download_resource, sync_courses), none of which perform connectivity checks. It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus other tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only hint is the implied 'verify before acting' role, which the agent must infer from the name alone.

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