check_connection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It uses 'verify' and 'show' which imply a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that no data is modified or describe error behavior. This leaves some ambiguity about side effects and failure handling.

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 sentences: the first states the purpose and output, the second provides usage guidance. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no redundant information.

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 connection check with an output schema present, the description covers the essential aspects: what credentials are verified, what configuration is shown, and when to run it. It does not address failure scenarios or assumptions, but these are minor gaps for this tool type.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description correctly does not add parameter details, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing to explain.

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 verifies Jira and Confluence credentials and displays resolved configuration details (base URLs, deployment flavour, story points field, defaults). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_confluence_capabilities, which focuses on capabilities rather than credentials and configuration.

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 explicitly says 'Run this first on a new instance,' providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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