dev_connections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the diagnostic framing, the returned payload contents, and a non-obvious 'watch address' concept, but little about rate limits, auth, or side effects. Adequate additive context on top of annotations.

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?

Front-loads the 'Diagnostic:' label and the returned fields, then follows with usage guidance. Mostly efficient, though the trailing clause about the join having 'scrolled away' is slightly discursive.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not the description's burden, and there are no parameters to document. Given the simple read-only diagnostic shape, the when-to-use guidance plus annotations make it sufficiently 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. Nothing to document, and the schema confirms an empty argument object.

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 gives a specific resource (every connection the session holds) and enumerates the returned fields (ids, channels, names, unread counts, watch address), prefixed by 'Diagnostic:'. It is clearly not a join/send/inbox tool, though it never names a sibling directly to sharpen the contrast.

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?

It states when-not to use it ('Not needed in normal use -- one connection needs no id, and a call that is ambiguous already reports the choices') and when it is useful (inspecting held state, retrieving the watch address after the reporting join scrolled away). Concrete conditions, but no explicit alternative tool names.

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