Check connector status

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

The description explains that the tool reports configuration status and authentication results, adding meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not go into depth about output format or potential side effects, but since readOnlyHint=true and the operation is purely informational, no safety concerns are unaddressed.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core function ('Report which Conviviera credentials are configured and whether they authenticate') and then adds a practical usage directive. Every sentence earns its place.

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 and a read-only annotation, the description covers the essential context: what it reports, what it checks, and when to use it. No output schema exists, but the description's promise of credential status and authentication results gives the agent enough understanding to invoke and interpret the tool.

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 trivially complete. The description does not need to elaborate on parameter meaning, and it correctly focuses on the tool's purpose instead.

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 states a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('Conviviera credentials'), and clarifies the tool's diagnostic nature: it checks whether credentials are configured and authenticate. The title 'Check connector status' complements this. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like list_threads or read_thread, which perform different operations.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use this first when something fails.' This establishes a clear diagnostic starting point. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but for a zero-parameter health-check tool, the instruction is sufficient.

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