Cycle connection status

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those flags by disclosing that the MCP is stateless and that cycle data must be passed in via tool arguments, which helps the agent interpret what this call can and cannot do.

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, front-loaded sentence: it states the core purpose first and then adds the statelessness note. Every clause earns its place, with no repetition of annotations or schema content.

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 zero-required-parameter liveness check with rich annotations and a fully documented optional parameter, the description is nearly complete: purpose, behavior, and statelessness are all present. It could be more explicit about exact return shape, but no output schema exists and 'reports' sufficiently signals the response nature.

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 100%, with privacy_mode fully documented via its enum and description, so the baseline of 3 applies. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail, and its general statelessness remark does not clarify the privacy_mode parameter.

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 concrete verb and target: it 'reports the coach is alive,' clearly marking this as a liveness/connection check. This is unmistakably distinct from the sibling tools, which are data/guidance operations, and the title reinforces the same purpose.

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 the tool should be used to verify that the coach is alive, and it adds a useful statelessness reminder about passing cycle data via args. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it, so routing 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.