TrueNAS Connection Status

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds critical behavioral details: it never reveals the API key itself, and it reports API generation detection and authentication success. This gives agents a fuller understanding of what the tool returns and its privacy safeguards. It does not contradict annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by a concise list of returned information and an explicit usage directive. No filler or redundancy.

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's simplicity (zero required parameters), the presence of an output schema, and the description covering purpose, usage timing, and expected outputs, the description is fully sufficient for an agent to select and correctly invoke this 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 already fully describes the only parameter (response_format) with enum values and their meaning. The description doesn't add anything about the parameter, and with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 delivers a specific verb+resource combination: 'Diagnose the connection to TrueNAS' and enumerates exactly what is shown (configured URL, API key presence, API generation, authentication success). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling data-access tools like truenas_get_system_info or truenas_list_pools.

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?

It explicitly instructs to 'Call this first when any other truenas_ tool fails,' providing an unambiguous usage scenario and prioritizing it as a diagnostic entry point. This contrasts with siblings, which are for specific resource queries.

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