check_connection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing safety and behavior. It explains that the tool reports server running status and client count, but does not explicitly state it is read-only or describe behavior when the sidecar is disconnected. For a diagnostic tool this is acceptable but not fully transparent.

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 three concise sentences: first states the main action, second details the output, third gives usage context. No redundancy or fluff; every sentence earns its place.

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 simple parameterless tool without an output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. No gaps for this complexity level.

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 the schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool checks, which is all that is needed for a parameterless tool. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 function: checking WebSocket sidecar connection status. It specifies the resource (WebSocket sidecar) and the action (check), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_layout or show_status by focusing on connection state and live-edit diagnostics.

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 description explicitly says the tool is 'useful for diagnosing live-edit features,' providing a clear when-to-use scenario. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but for a status-check tool this context is sufficient.

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