Polar Connection Status

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive safety, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: it does not call the Polar API and does not expose secrets, which matters for a config-auditing tool and is not derivable from the annotations.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the verb and the scope, with the key constraint ('without calling Polar or exposing secrets') trailing appropriately. No wasted sentences, though the item list is long enough to be slightly heavy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers what is inspected and the no-API-call guarantee; the only real gap is the unaddressed parameter semantics.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions the two parameters (client and response_format) despite 'optional MCP client readiness' hinting at client. With two undocumented enum parameters, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap, leaving the agent to infer parameter meaning from enum values alone.

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 states a specific verb ('Check') and enumerates the concrete resources inspected (local config, token file, Node version, privacy mode, cache readiness, optional MCP client readiness). This distinguishes it from siblings like polar_cache_status and polar_privacy_audit, though the distinction is implied by scope overlap rather than stated outright.

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 phrase 'without calling Polar' implies this is a pre-flight/diagnostic check, which cues usage, but the description never states when to prefer it over polar_capabilities, polar_cache_status or polar_privacy_audit, nor any exclusions. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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