SingleOps connection status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it reports session expiry, auth scheme without secret values, gates, write budget, and performs a live probe against one GET route. It does not state whether the probe can fail or consume anything, but the added behavioral detail is substantial.

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 a single dense sentence with the key concept front-loaded: connection status, then the specific components. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey what the tool returns, and it does so by listing the status fields. It is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's payload, though it does not describe response format or failure modes in detail.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent parameter semantics and the empty schema is consistent with a no-argument status endpoint.

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 diagnostic resource—connection status—and enumerates what is reported: session presence/expiry, auth scheme without secrets, gates, write budget, and a live GET probe. This clearly distinguishes it from the many data-query siblings, which list or search domain objects.

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 diagnostic nature is strongly implied by 'Connection status' and 'live probe', but the description never explicitly says when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. An agent can infer it is a health/status check, but no routing guidance is provided.

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