get_client_connectivity_report

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds substantially more — no network I/O is performed, the data is only as fresh as the last real contact with each node, no proactive detection of newly-down services, and no additional RBAC role is required beyond the initial cluster connection. The staleness caveat is exactly the kind of behavior an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the alternative routing, with the caveats following in decreasing priority. Minor redundancy in restating the no-I/O point twice (once in the middle, once in the RBAC sentence), but nearly every sentence carries distinct 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 zero-parameter read-only diagnostic tool, the description covers purpose, cost, freshness limits, permission implications, and the per-endpoint fields returned. An output schema exists, and the brief Returns section is consistent with it rather than a substitute for it.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4, and the description goes further by explaining why there are none: filtering to specific services is impossible because no I/O occurs. That preempts an agent trying to pass a service filter argument.

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 and resource: check whether the client's connections were already broken and for how long. It immediately distinguishes itself from the named sibling get_cluster_health_and_services by contrasting cached state with live pings, so an agent can tell them apart without opening either schema.

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 says when to use this tool (cheap, frequent, cached-state checks), when not to ("Use get_cluster_health_and_services instead when you need a live, right-now reachability check"), and notes the capability gap that no filtering is possible. Both directions of the routing decision are covered.

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