test_instagram_connection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses what the tool checks (token expiry/revocation, permissions, rate limits, API version) using concrete error codes. It doesn't explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, but the nature of a 'test connection' tool strongly implies no mutation.

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 concise and well-structured: a single-sentence purpose statement followed by a compact bulleted list of error codes. Every line provides actionable information without redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (no params, no output schema), but the description provides strong context: when to use it, what it detects, and how to interpret error codes. It stops short of describing the exact success output format, but for a diagnostic tool the listed error categories and clear purpose make it largely 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 input schema is empty (0 parameters), so the description has no parameter details to add. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no params to explain, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior instead.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+outcome: 'Test the Instagram Graph API connection and report the exact status.' It clearly distinguishes this diagnostic tool from siblings like debug_instagram_token by focusing on connectivity and error classification rather than token internals.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is given: 'Use this first whenever posting fails.' It also lists specific problem categories (expired token, permissions, rate limit, API deprecation) that align with its purpose, making the intended usage scenario unmistakable.

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