connect_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Detecta' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state whether it modifies anything, requires auth, or how it handles missing inputs. It also fails to define what 'connected' means or what happens when agentic-ecos is not connected.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and efficient, with every word earning 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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns or how to interpret results, but it does not. It also lacks context on prerequisites, expected behavior, or dependencies beyond naming 'target'. For a status-checking tool, this is incomplete.

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%, so the description must compensate for the bare schema. It mentions 'target' as the location of configs, but 'config_path' is left unexplained. Neither parameter's role is fully clarified, and the description adds minimal semantic value beyond hinting at 'target'.

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 uses the specific verb 'Detecta' and names two concrete targets: which agents have config in target and whether agentic-ecos is connected. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling status tools like ecosystem_status or agentic_health, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools, offering only a statement of function. There is no implied or explicit usage context.

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