get_connection_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the lazy connection behavior ('connected is false until another tool has been used') and lists the return fields. This adds significant behavioral context beyond a simple status check.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence earns its place. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides behavioral detail and usage guidance. 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 has no parameters, low complexity, and an output schema exists (though not shown), the description covers purpose, behavior (lazy connection), return fields, and usage guidance. It is fully complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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. The description adds value by explaining the return fields and the lazy connection behavior, which goes beyond the empty schema. No parameter documentation is needed, but the description compensates by clarifying what the tool returns.

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 reports the current rosbridge connection status and readonly mode. The verb 'report' and the resource 'connection status' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like list_topics or publish_message, which serve different purposes.

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 includes explicit guidance: 'Check this first when other tools report errors.' This tells the agent when to use the tool. It also notes that the tool takes no arguments, which is helpful. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use alternatives, the context of diagnostic ordering is valuable.

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