diagnose_cde_connectivity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that it 'configure endpoint + list jobs', which gives some insight into actions, but it does not clarify potential side effects (e.g., modifying config files), authentication requirements, or failure behavior. This partial transparency warrants a middle score.

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 focused sentence followed by a clear, structured argument list. Every element serves a purpose, with no filler or repetition, 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?

The tool has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values, but it lacks context about when to use this for diagnosing connectivity versus simply listing jobs. It also does not mention any prerequisites or expected inputs, leaving the agent with a minimal but not fully complete picture.

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?

Despite having 0% schema description coverage, the description enriches all three parameters by stating they override environment variables (e.g., 'overrides CDE_USER env'). This adds clear meaning beyond the raw schema, though it does not specify defaults or required-ness, which are already in the schema as nullable with defaults.

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 purpose with the verb 'probe' and resource 'CDE CLI connectivity', and it distinguishes itself from siblings like list_cde_jobs by noting it also 'configure endpoint + list jobs'. This gives a specific, actionable definition.

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 such as list_cde_jobs or describe_cde_job. There is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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