get_connection_status

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

With readOnlyHint=true already indicating a safe read operation, the description adds useful behavioral context: it checks both SMTP and IMAP, returns individual pass/fail per protocol, and diagnoses connectivity. It does not disclose potential latency or network call side effects, but the annotation covers safety and the description adds sufficient operational detail.

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 three sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core function, the second gives usage guidance, and the third names the alternative. Each sentence earns its place, and key 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 simple zero-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, return format (individual pass/fail), and distinguishes from run_doctor. No additional return structure details are necessary given the simplicity.

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 the schema fully documents the input. The description adds no parameter details, which is appropriate. A zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4.

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 checks Proton Bridge SMTP and IMAP reachability and authentication status, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming run_doctor as the preferred tool for full end-to-end health checks.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use to diagnose connectivity before sending or syncing, or when tools return connection errors.' It also provides an alternative: 'Prefer run_doctor for a full end-to-end health check including index integrity.' This gives clear usage context and alternatives.

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