Connection Settings

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation with open-world data. The description adds useful context by specifying the tool's purpose for security review and troubleshooting, which complements the annotations without contradiction. However, it doesn't mention potential rate limits or authentication requirements beyond what annotations imply.

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 that are front-loaded with the tool's purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every word adds value without repetition or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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, rich annotations covering safety and behavior, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context by explaining what settings are retrieved and when to use it. However, it doesn't describe the return format or structure, which could be helpful since there's no output schema.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage. This aligns with the baseline expectation for zero-parameter tools.

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 specific action ('Get') and resource ('connection and authentication settings'), listing concrete examples like session timeouts and authentication methods. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like ras_site_get_ad_integration or ras_site_get_mfa by focusing on connection-specific settings rather than other site configurations.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'to review security posture or troubleshoot client connection issues.' This provides clear context for its application, though it doesn't name specific alternatives among siblings. The guidance is direct and practical for agent decision-making.

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