Air connection status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint = false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral value by specifying exactly what the tool reports (providers, default, warnings) and instructing that warnings should be surfaced to the user. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand the operational behavior without any contradiction.

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, focused sentence that conveys the entire scope: what is reported and that warnings should be surfaced. There is no filler or redundancy; every word earns its place.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent what data to expect (providers, default, warnings) without requiring detailed return format specification. The only minor gap is the structure of the 'warnings' but this does not block correct use.

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?

The input schema fully describes the only parameter 'privacy_mode' with its enum values and explanation. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds nothing about parameters. The baseline of 3 applies, and the description appropriately omits redundant parameter details.

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 the tool 'reports which providers are configured, which is the default, and any warnings'. This uses a specific verb ('reports'), identifies the resource (provider configuration), and includes additional output (warnings). It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like air_measurement or air_health which focus on data rather than connection 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: this is the tool to call when an agent needs to know the current connection state (providers, default, warnings). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives. Sibling tools suggest different purposes, so the context is clear but without exclusions the 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.