Withings Connection Status

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable insight: it explicitly states that the tool does not call Withings or expose secrets, which goes beyond the annotations to clarify what it does NOT 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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope. It is front-loaded and contains no verbose or redundant phrases.

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?

While the description covers the main purpose and the output schema likely handles return values, the omission of parameter semantics reduces completeness. For a tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the parameters to be fully informative.

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% for the two parameters. The description fails to explain the purpose of the 'client' and 'response_format' parameters, leaving a significant gap. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description should explicitly link them to the tool's behavior.

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 clearly specifies that the tool checks local Withings config, token file, Node version, privacy mode, cache readiness, and optional MCP client readiness, all without external calls or exposing secrets. This distinguishes it from siblings that perform API calls or other specific checks.

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 when to use this tool (checking local connection status without external calls), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives. However, the context is clear enough for an AI agent to differentiate from siblings.

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