rba_connection_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Although 'Return' implies a read-only operation, the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, does not modify state, or any caveats like whether the connection-state checks are live or cached. This is a gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 that immediately states the verb and resource. Every word adds value, listing exactly what will be returned. There is no filler or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose and lists the key return fields. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., JSON object vs plain text) or whether the values are current or could be stale, leaving some context incomplete for an agent relying solely on this description.

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 zero parameters, and the description correctly focuses on the output. With no parameters to document, the description adds no param semantics needed, and the baseline for zero-param tools is 4. It fully avoids inventing non-existent parameters.

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 'Return' and clearly lists the resource: active RBA websocket host, port, URL, candidate URLs, and published connection-state checks. It is specific enough to distinguish from most sibling tools, though it could more explicitly differentiate from rba_ws_status.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or context such as 'use this to debug connection issues' or 'instead of rba_ws_status'. The usage context is only implied by the description.

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