Oura Connection Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it performs local checks without calling Oura and without exposing secrets, which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the key information. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no fluff. It efficiently conveys the scope and constraints.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (diagnostic check), with annotations covering safety, parameters optional with defaults, and an output schema present, the description covers what the tool checks and its constraints. It is complete for the tool's function.

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 0%, so the description does not explain the two optional parameters (client and response_format). However, both parameters have enums and defaults, making them somewhat self-documenting. The tool is simple, so a score of 3 is acceptable as the minimum viable, but the description could add meaning.

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 it checks multiple specific local resources (config, token, Node version, privacy mode, cache, MCP client) and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly saying it does not call Oura or expose secrets. The verb 'check' and list of resources make the purpose very specific.

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 this is a diagnostic/readiness check for local setup, and mentions it doesn't call Oura or expose secrets, which helps the agent know when to use it. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like oura_cache_status or oura_privacy_audit, so there is some room for improvement.

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