connection_status

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

The description adds context beyond the annotations by specifying that it verifies saved tokens, implying it reports on token validity. The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It effectively covers the purpose of a non-destructive check but does not detail what happens if tokens are invalid or what the output format is, though output schema exists.

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, concise sentence that gets straight to the point. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it easy to parse.

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?

As a simple status-check tool with no parameters, an output schema, and no complex behavior, the description is sufficient to understand its function. It could potentially clarify what the return value indicates (e.g., boolean or error) but the output schema likely covers that. It's adequately complete for its simplicity.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema provides no semantic information, but the description adds minimal meaning by stating that saved tokens are the subject. Since there are no parameters to describe, a baseline of 4 is appropriate, as the description doesn't need to explain 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 description clearly states the tool's purpose: verifying that saved Garmin tokens can authenticate. It uses the specific verb 'Verify' and identifies the resource ('saved Garmin tokens'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle workouts and activities. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings that may also perform authentication checks.

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 tool is for checking connection status, which is a typical diagnostic step before other operations, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it or when not to use it. The context is implied: checking token validity, but there are no explicit exclusions or guidance on alternatives.

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