get_houdini_connection_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key non-obvious behavior (does not raise on disconnect), states that it returns structured diagnostics, and names the included payload elements (bridge URL and Houdini health payload when reachable). This goes well beyond what the tool name alone conveys, though the exact diagnostic shape is not fully specified.

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 two compact sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core behavior; the second adds return-value highlights and usage timing. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important facts are 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 diagnostic tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, non-throwing behavior, return-value highlights, and recommended usage context. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke it confidently, though full enumeration of every diagnostic field would require an output schema rather than prose.

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 baseline is 4. There is no parameter information for the description to add, and nothing in the description needs to clarify argument usage.

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 the Codex-to-Houdini bridge', and immediately adds the distinctive behavioral qualifier 'without raising on disconnect'. This clearly separates it from the many sibling tools that manipulate scenes, parameters, or caches, making the tool's role as a connectivity diagnostic unambiguous.

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 it: 'Use this before live viewport workflows when Houdini may have restarted or its hwebserver may not be running.' This is strong situational guidance, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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