Oura Connection Status

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds context about not calling Oura and not exposing secrets, which aligns with the annotations and adds value beyond them.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and lists all checked items, with no wasted words.

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 presence of annotations, an output schema, and the tool's simplicity as a local status check, the description covers the essential checks and non-exposure of secrets. It could be more complete by describing parameters, but it is still adequate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It only hints at 'optional MCP client readiness' for the client parameter, but does not explain the enum values or response_format. This is insufficient for an agent to understand parameter effects.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Check local Oura config, token file, Node version, privacy mode, cache readiness and optional MCP client readiness', which is a specific verb+resource combination that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools that interact with Oura APIs.

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 local status checks with 'without calling Oura', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like oura_cache_status or oura_privacy_audit. More explicit guidance would be beneficial.

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