get_connection_status

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

The description complements the readOnlyHint annotation by confirming it returns status without side effects. It adds that it returns 'individual pass/fail for each protocol,' which is useful behavioral detail beyond the annotation.

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 extremely concise, with two sentences that front-load the purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It is complete for the intended diagnostic use case.

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?

With zero parameters, the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description correctly avoids adding unnecessary parameter info.

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 explicitly states the tool checks Proton Bridge SMTP and IMAP reachability and authentication status. It uses specific verbs and resources ('Check whether... are reachable and return authentication status'), clearly differentiating from sibling tools like run_doctor.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use to diagnose connectivity before sending or syncing, or when tools return connection errors.' It also specifies an alternative ('Prefer run_doctor for a full end-to-end health check'), helping the agent choose correctly.

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