grandMA3 connection status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it implies a non-mutating probe, discloses the concrete data returned (version, show file, user, OSC fallback), and explains the non-obvious 'stale' build state semantics. It stops short of stating error/return behavior when the bridge is unreachable or confirming it has no side effects.

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?

A single dense but front-loaded sentence that opens with the core purpose before listing reported fields. The trailing clause explaining 'stale' is justified, though the sentence is long and could be split for scanability.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns — and it enumerates the key reported fields (version, show file, user, Lua policy and budget, OSC fallback, build state). It leaves response shape and the unreachable-case representation implicit, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 with 100% schema coverage, so the parameter burden is nil; baseline 4 applies. Nothing in the description is needed to clarify inputs.

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 combination ('Check whether the gma3_mcp_bridge plugin ... is reachable') and then enumerates exactly what is reported. It is unmistakably distinct from every sibling, none of which is a health/diagnostic probe.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description reads like a preflight/diagnostic check, but it never says when to call it (e.g., 'call before other tools', 'verify after gma3_start_bridge') or what to do when the bridge is unreachable. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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