Get Connection Status

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses the critical behavioral trait that this tool never contacts the external API. This is essential context an agent needs to interpret the returned status correctly and to avoid assuming a live connection test.

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 with no filler. Every word earns its place: it states what is returned and explicitly rules out a major misconception.

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 an output schema available, the description only needs to clarify the tool's semantic scope, which it does. The negative statement about the API prevents a likely misinterpretation, and combined with the annotations, the definition is fully sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. Per the baseline rule for 0-parameter tools, the description needn't explain parameter behavior, and the existing sentence contains all necessary information.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('scaffold status'), and explicitly states what it does not do ('does not verify or contact the WTTJ API'). This makes the tool's exact function unmistakable even without siblings.

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 negative clause 'does not verify or contact the WTTJ API' communicates an important usage boundary: this is not a live connectivity check. It doesn't name explicit alternatives, but with no sibling tools and a zero-parameter scope, it provides clear context for when to call it.

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