Check the Hobart connection

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld, so safety is covered; the description adds useful behavior beyond that by disclosing that it exercises the configured account's sign-in, implying credentials must be set up. It stops short of describing the outcome/return shape, which matters for a diagnostic with no output schema.

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?

Two sentences and zero filler: the first states what is verified, the second states the usage constraint. The condition that selects the tool is front-loaded after the purpose.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema health check, the description gives enough to call it correctly and interpret its intent. The only gap is the absence of any statement about what a result looks like (pass/fail, error text), which is the remaining ambiguity an agent would face.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline of 4 applies and the description correctly does not waste space on inputs.

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?

States a specific verb (checks) and a specific resource (Hobart Cloud-to-Cloud API reachability plus account sign-in), which clearly distinguishes this diagnostic from the sibling data-retrieval tools like hobart_get_machine_data or hobart_get_active_errors.

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?

Explicitly names the trigger condition ('only when another tool fails') and the goal ('whether the problem is the connection'), which also acts as an exclusion against routine/periodic use. An agent has no ambiguity about when to call this versus a sibling.

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