nt_connection_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's scope ('all broker connections'), the state values it returns, and a limitation ('Local mode only'). It does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, but the verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the additional constraint adds value beyond the name.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly communicates the action, object, result types, and a key constraint. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, what it returns, and an important environmental restriction ('Local mode only'). This is complete for a simple status-checking tool.

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, so the schema fully documents the input (empty object). With 100% schema coverage and no params, the description has no obligation to explain parameter syntax. It correctly avoids inventing unnecessary parameter details.

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 specific action ('Get'), the resource ('status of all broker connections in NinjaTrader'), and the result values ('Connected / Disconnected / Connecting'). This distinguishes it from siblings like nt_health_check or nt_accounts by focusing on broker connections.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need broker connection status. However, it lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use this instead of nt_health_check for connection-level detail' or 'not for account-level health'. The 'Local mode only' constraint provides context but no comparative guidance.

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