check_connection

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent. The description adds non-redundant behavioral details: minimal API call, no credential echo, and the exact return items (status, unit system, cache TTL, cache hit statistics). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise: three short sentences with a bullet list for return values. It is front-loaded with the purpose and every sentence earns its place, providing function, behavior, and output without fluff.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters, and the description covers purpose, safety, and return values. The presence of an output schema and comprehensive annotations means the agent has everything needed. The description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 schema coverage is 100% by default. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately omits parameter details. It does provide return-value context, but that is not part of parameter semantics.

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 tool's function: 'Verify credentials and report server configuration.' It is a specific verb+resource pair that distinguishes it from batch/recipe/inventory siblings. The added context about making one minimal API call and never echoing credentials reinforces its unique scope.

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 use for credential verification and server configuration retrieval. 'Makes one minimal API call' signals low cost, and 'Never echoes credential values' reassures safety. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the sibling tools are unrelated enough that this is a minor gap.

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