check_connection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks if the plugin is running, but does not explain what 'running' means (e.g., active connection, loaded state), what happens if it's not running (e.g., error response, timeout), or any performance considerations like latency. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 a single, clear sentence: 'Check if the IDA plugin is running'. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no unnecessary words or redundant information. This makes it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 that the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists (which likely handles return values), the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or operational context, which could be important for a connection-checking tool in a debugging environment. It meets basic needs but has room for improvement.

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 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description does not need to add parameter semantics, as there are none to document. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool, as the description's focus is on purpose rather than inputs.

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's purpose: 'Check if the IDA plugin is running'. It specifies the verb ('Check') and the resource ('IDA plugin'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools, though its purpose is distinct enough in context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing the plugin to be installed, or suggest other tools for related tasks like troubleshooting connection issues. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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