connector_health

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only operation ('Report') but provides no details on side effects, dependencies, or behavior when optional dependencies are missing. The phrase 'optional dependency availability' hints at some checks but lacks depth.

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 purpose. It earns its place but could provide slightly more detail without becoming verbose. Overall it is efficiently 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and includes an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the essential context. It explains what is reported (configuration and dependency availability). The absence of more details is acceptable for a simple health-check 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 is empty, so there are zero parameters. Per guidelines, zero parameters default to a score of 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics since none exist.

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 reports connector configuration and optional dependency availability. The verb 'Report' is specific and the resource is defined. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from 'playwright_cli_health' but the connector focus differentiates it.

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 usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus the sibling health tool 'playwright_cli_health' or any other alternative. The context implies a health-check purpose, but lacks explicit instructions.

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