check_connection

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden. It accurately states the check's purpose but does not disclose what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean result, a success message, or an error when InDesign is closed), nor how it signals failure. The core behavior is clear, but edge-case response semantics are left unspecified—acceptable for a simple preflight, yet a tangible 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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first delivers the purpose, the second delivers the usage imperative. The key precondition is front-loaded and prominently stated. Nothing extraneous.

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 zero-parameter health-check tool, the description is essentially complete: it names the target application, states the condition it verifies, and explains when to run it. The only omission—the exact return value format—is minor for a preflight check whose result an agent primarily uses as a go/no-go signal.

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 has zero parameters, and with no properties in the schema there is nothing to document. The 0-param baseline of 4 applies here; the description correctly omits parameter details because none exist. No information is missing on this dimension.

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 ('Checks') and resource ('whether Adobe InDesign is open and responding'). It naturally distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, which are document/export/text operations—none of them perform connectivity checks. An agent can instantly identify this as the health-check preflight tool.

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 instruction 'Run this tool before using the others' gives explicit, actionable context on when to invoke it—as a prerequisite for every other operation. It does not spell out when not to use it or name alternatives, but as the lone connection-check tool among siblings, no alternative is needed. The guidance is clear and sufficient.

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