remarkable_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context about what each transport can and cannot do, how export works (temporary local resource, never modifies tablet), and how to enable write mode. However, it could detail the returned capability matrix structure more explicitly.

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 well-structured with clear XML tags, front-loaded summary, and detailed sections for instructions and examples. It's longer than strictly necessary for a zero-param tool but each section adds value for agent decision-making. Could be slightly more compact.

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 zero parameters, present annotations, and existence of an output schema, the description provides everything needed: purpose, transport capabilities, troubleshooting context, and an example. The output schema handles return value details, so the description's coverage is complete.

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?

There are zero parameters, schema coverage is 100%, so the description has no param details to provide. The baseline is 4, and the description includes helpful usage examples and context that compensates for the lack of parameters.

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 verb "check" paired with specific resources (connection status, active transport, write capabilities) makes the tool's purpose highly clear. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings which focus on file operations or rendering tasks.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: to verify connection, choose a transport, or troubleshoot. It offers detailed capability breakdowns per transport and explains why write tools are disabled by default, helping the agent decide between alternative transports.

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