Withings Connection Status

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by explicitly mentioning 'token freshness,' which informs the agent that the tool also checks token validity, not just link status. This goes beyond the basic annotation details and clarifies the behavioral scope.

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 directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it optimally concise.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and straightforward annotations, the description is complete enough. It communicates the two key aspects of the status (link status and token freshness) without overcomplicating. The simplicity of the tool does not require additional detail, and the description fully enables correct selection and invocation.

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 is empty and there is nothing to document. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description appropriately adds no parameter-related confusion. The description correctly focuses on what the status check reports.

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 what the tool does: checks whether the Withings account is linked and if the token is fresh. It uses a specific resource (Withings account) and distinguishes this tool from sibling data-fetching tools (e.g., withings_get_activity) and connection-altering tools (e.g., withings_connect) by focusing on connection status.

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 this tool is for checking connection status, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention that it can be used before other Withings operations or that it is a read-only check. No clear 'when-not-to-use' or alternative references are provided.

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