check_client_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates the tool performs a connectivity and credential verification, but does not specify outcomes (e.g., success/failure messages, side effects like logging, or whether it is read-only). Adequate but could be more explicit.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and resource, the second provides usage context. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides all necessary information: purpose, supported backends, and when to use it. Fully complete for this simple tool.

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 has no parameters (0 params), and schema description coverage is 100%. The description implicitly covers the absence of parameters by not mentioning any inputs. It adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema, but none is needed. Baseline 3 adjusted upward because no param info is required.

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 action ('health check') and the resource ('configured client list backend'), listing specific backend types (SharePoint, Excel, webhook). It is distinct from sibling tools, which focus on docket operations.

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 explicitly says 'Useful when setting up a new connection to verify credentials and connectivity,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but the context is sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

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