Hevy Connection Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds minimal context beyond the annotations—simply stating what the tool reports. No additional behavioral details are provided, but nothing contradicts the 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that fully conveys the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is perfectly sized for a simple status endpoint.

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 status tool with extensive annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), this description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does, and the annotations cover the behavioral context. No output schema exists, but the description need not explain return values.

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, and the schema shows an empty properties object. The description adds no parameter information, but with no parameters, the baseline of 4 is appropriate. There is nothing to clarify.

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 'Whether your Hevy account is linked' clearly communicates the tool's function: reporting the connection status. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like hevy_connect and hevy_disconnect, but lacks an explicit verb such as 'checks' or 'returns', so it falls just short of a 5.

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 purpose itself implies when to use this tool: when you need to know if the Hevy account is linked. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear given the sibling tools are all actions or data retrievals, and this is the only status check.

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