inspect_connection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope by noting verification of public server identity including a reverse-proxy base path, but it does not describe authentication needs, network failure behavior, or what verification actually returns.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It leads with the verb and resource, then adds the relevant URL scope.

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 one-parameter read-only inspection tool, the description covers purpose and URL scope, and annotations cover safety. However, with no output schema, the description leaves unclear what "verify" returns and how failures or unreachable servers are reported.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single url parameter. It does add meaning by saying the URL should be a full URL including any reverse-proxy base path, which goes beyond format=uri. However, it does not specify scheme expectations, trailing-slash behavior, or how the base path should be represented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Verify public server identity" at a full URL, including a reverse-proxy base path. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as discover_server, authenticate_server, or inspect_capabilities.

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 implies the tool is for verifying public server identity at a full URL, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives such as discover_server or authenticate_server. An agent must infer when this is the right choice.

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