calmesh_check_connection_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the 'full' scope requirement, which is helpful, and indicates a read-only status check. However, it does not explicitly confirm no side effects, describe error handling, or specify the response format. This is adequate but not rich in detail.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then the key auth requirement. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary detail or repetition.

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 single-parameter status-check tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it states the action, the possible statuses shown, and the auth requirement. While it could mention the response format or alternative tools, those are not critical for this straightforward use case.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with the parameter 'connection_id' clearly described as 'Connection ID to check.' The description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('calendar connection'), and clearly states the outcome ('Shows if the connection is active, errored, or disconnected'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_connections, which lists all connections, by focusing on a single connection's status.

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 implies usage for checking a specific connection's sync status, but does not explicitly state when to use this instead of alternatives like list_connections or start_oauth_connection. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, so guidance is only implied.

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