status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only check but never states whether it is side-effect free, whether it requires auth or a token, how stale a 'stored connection' must be to count as invalid, or what the result contains. For a tool whose entire purpose is to report state, the absence of any return-shape hint (and no output schema) is a real gap.

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 well-formed sentence with no filler, and the two things it verifies (connection existence, connection validity) are front-loaded immediately. Nothing to trim.

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?

The tool is simple (no params, no nested objects) and the description covers its two checks, but with no annotations and no output schema, an agent still cannot anticipate what a success or failure response looks like. Adequate for the tool's low complexity, but not fully self-contained.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema already shows. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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 a precise resource ('connection to ResumeState', 'stored connection validity'), which is far more informative than the bare name 'status'. It implies a distinction from the 'connect' sibling (establishing a connection) but never states that distinction explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a diagnostic to run before or instead of connect/resume, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. With siblings like connect and resume in the same family, an explicit contrast would have been cheap and valuable.

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