connection_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the default no-network behavior, that check_live is read-only, that secrets and account data are never returned, and that login is never started. It leaves out failure modes (e.g., what happens if the live check cannot reach Meta), which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then the optional mode, then the safety guarantees. No filler or repetition.

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?

For a one-parameter, no-output-schema diagnostic tool, the description covers what is reported, the network boundary, and the safety guarantees. Only the shape of the live-check outcome is left unspecified, which is a minor gap for a tool this simple.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter has no schema description, so the description must compensate — and it does, explaining that check_live=true triggers one read-only Meta access check while the default is local-only. It does not state the default value explicitly or what a live-check result looks like, but the meaning is clear.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Show the running server version and local setup') plus an explicit scope ('without network access'), and the opt-in mode is named. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_meta_auth_status and start_meta_login, which it explicitly says it does not perform.

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?

Gives a clear condition for the non-default path ('Set check_live=true for one read-only Meta account access check') and bounds it as a single check. It implies but does not explicitly name the alternative to use for login or auth-state questions, so routing is inferential rather than stated.

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