check-pce-connection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses the return fields (status, health_http_status, health_round_trip_ms, total_seconds), what error messages contain (host, wait duration, HTTP status/timeout), how to interpret failures (5xx = PCE/front end, timeout = network), and that waits are bounded by MCP_PCE_RETRIES and MCP_PCE_REQUEST_TIMEOUT.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core question ('Is the PCE answering, and how fast'), followed by endpoint, return shape, failure semantics, and the operational trigger. No sentence is filler.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description fully compensates by specifying the call, the response fields, the error content, timeout interpretation, and bounded-wait controls. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret it.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing parameter-wise for the description to add or omit.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: it probes GET /health to determine whether the PCE is answering and how fast. This is clearly distinct from sibling tools like check-pce-credentials-status or get-workloads, and even names the exact endpoint being called.

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?

Gives an explicit usage trigger -- 'run this first when any other tool returns tool_timeout' -- which is strong operational guidance. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the related check-pce-credentials-status sibling, so this is clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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