proton_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: not whether the check is local-only, what happens if Bridge is not installed or not running, whether it requires auth, or how long it blocks. 'Reports whether... answers' implies a read-only probe but that is inference, not disclosure.

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 opening is short and front-loaded, but the definition ends mid-sentence ('connected to...'), leaving an incomplete statement rather than a wasteful one. The core claim lands in the first clause, so it is usable but not well-formed.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of information about what a status result looks like, and it stops before saying. An agent cannot tell from this whether a 'Bridge not answering' case is an error or a normal result.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The remaining value the description could add (account list shape) is cut off.

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 (reports) and resource (Proton Mail Bridge reachability plus connected accounts), which clearly separates it from proton_disconnect and the proton_* mail tools. The second clause is truncated mid-sentence, so the full scope of 'connected to...' is never completed.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of proton_disconnect or run_diagnostics as an alternative when Bridge is down. An agent can infer this is a diagnostic, but nothing in the text routes it.

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