Verify OneHome auth + GraphQL reachability

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, already indicating safety and non-mutating behavior. The description adds value by disclosing that it returns auth mode, token expiry, bridge role, elapsed time, and error detail, which is beyond the annotations. It also hints at the mechanism (round-trip) and its diagnostic role, covering key behavioral aspects without contradicting 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 compact paragraph that front-loads the core action, then explains the query selection logic, output information, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or redundancy, and it reads naturally as a cohesive, informative unit.

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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what it does, which queries it uses, what it returns, and when to use it. There are no gaps in operational knowledge for an agent to call it correctly, as it is a parameterless action.

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 no parameters, and with 0 parameters, the description naturally cannot add parameter-specific detail. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does explain the operational context (which queries are used, what it returns), which compensates for the lack of parameters. Since schema coverage is 100% and there are no params, the description's contextual detail earns a 4.

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 tool's purpose: to round-trip a minimal authenticated query through the transport, verifying auth and GraphQL reachability. It specifies the exact queries used and the distinction between consumer-share vs agent sessions, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that fetch specific data.

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?

It explicitly instructs to run this tool first when another tool fails, and explains that it isolates the question of whether auth is wired up from actual API misbehavior. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and contextual reasoning, though it doesn't mention alternatives directly, it's clear this is a diagnostic step.

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