Withings Connection Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent. The description adds value by specifying it checks multiple local components, avoids external calls, and does not expose secrets. No contradictions.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and lists all checked items concisely. No unnecessary 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?

The description covers the essential behavior for a diagnostic tool, but lacks parameter explanations. Output schema exists, so return details are covered elsewhere. Completeness is adequate but leaves room for improvement.

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%, yet the description does not explain the parameters. 'client' and 'response_format' are left to the agent to infer from enum names. The description only hints at client role via 'optional MCP client readiness'.

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 local configuration, token, Node version, privacy mode, cache readiness, and optionally MCP client readiness. It distinguishes itself by emphasizing no external calls and no secrets, setting it apart from siblings that make API calls or expose data.

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 use for local health checks without side effects, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like withings_cache_status or withings_privacy_audit. Some guidance is present but incomplete.

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