get_connection_status

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

Even though readOnlyHint=true already covers the read-only nature, the description reveals return contents (individual pass/fail per protocol), the server version and entrypoint path, and a subtle diagnostic warning about orphaned installs shadowing upgrades. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 dense but every clause earns its place: purpose, use cases, return values, version-check guidance, and an alternative tool. The most actionable information is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter read-only diagnostic with no output schema, the description fully explains what it returns, why it matters, when to call it, and when not to. No critical information is missing.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing to document. Per the no-parameter baseline this is a 4; the description appropriately spends no space on 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether Proton Bridge SMTP and IMAP are reachable'. It clearly differentiates this diagnostic from the sibling run_doctor tool by name, so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'before sending or syncing, or when tools return connection errors.' It also names the alternative run_doctor and the condition for preferring that tool, leaving no ambiguity about selection.

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