maimemo_connection_status

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is set. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: the token is never displayed and remote validity is not verified, which prevents misinterpretation of the result.

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 compact sentence leads with the core action and appends two scoping caveats. Nothing is redundant and every clause carries information.

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 and zero parameters, the description supplies the essential scope of the check. It could briefly indicate what the result conveys (configured vs not), but for a trivial connectivity check it is nearly 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?

Parameter count is 0, so there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. Schema coverage is trivially 100% and no enum or nested objects exist to explain.

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+resource: it checks whether the local token is configured. It also scopes the check by denying two things (no token display, no remote validation), which cleanly separates it from the data-operation siblings. It falls short of 5 only because no sibling alternative is named, though none is really needed here.

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 implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this belongs in a diagnostic/prerequisite step before making authenticated calls. There is no explicit 'use this when...' or mention of alternatives, but the negative scoping ('does not validate remote') gives some decision context.

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