anki_check_connection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read nature is known. The description adds the exact return value (API version 6) and the behavioral distinction between two failure modes. This goes beyond annotations with useful context.

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?

Three short sentences, each with a specific purpose: state the check, give usage guidance, and state the return value. No filler or 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?

For a simple diagnostic tool, this is complete. Annotations cover safety, output schema likely covers return structure, and the description covers when to use and expected success/error distinction. No gaps.

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 single parameter (response_format) is fully documented in the schema, so description need not repeat it. The description adds no param-specific context, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('Anki is running and AnkiConnect is reachable'). It clearly distinguishes this diagnostic connection-check tool from sibling Anki tools, which perform actions like syncing, listing, or creating decks.

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?

Directly states when to use: 'Call this first when any other Anki tool fails.' It explains the diagnostic value: distinguishing 'Anki is closed' from 'the request itself was wrong', which is a clear recommendation versus alternatives.

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