pro_connection_doctor

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is settled. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that: it discloses that secret values are redacted, that no commands are executed, and that the call does not attach to CAD or certify render availability — negative guarantees an agent cannot derive from the 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by the opt-in capability and the scope exclusions. Every clause delivers either a capability or a boundary; no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 one-optional-boolean, read-only probe with no output schema, the description covers who/what/where and the negative scope. The only shortfall is that it does not outline the shape of the returned identity/profile report, which would help an agent know what to do with the result.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the single parameter, and 'optionally inspect conventional client settings' does map to include_client_configs=true and conveys that the default is off. It does not explain what 'conventional client settings' concretely covers or what appears in the report when the flag is set, so compensation is partial.

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 output (identity and tool-profile report) from a specific source (this running PRO server), so the agent knows it is a self-inspection call rather than a CAD operation. The two closing clauses explicitly rule out CAD attachment and render-availability checks, which separates it from pro_visualize_status and pro_diagnose, though it never names those siblings directly.

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 signals that client-settings inspection is optional and that the tool executes no commands, which is implicit guidance for when to reach for it (safe, non-invasive probing). It never states a concrete trigger condition (e.g. 'call this first when the connection is misbehaving') or points to an alternative such as pro_diagnose, so the when-to-use reasoning is left to inference.

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