vcfa_connection_status

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

readOnlyHint=true is already declared, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value: it lists the exact fields surfaced (including auth mode, token expiry, read-only flag, tool counts) and warns that test=true performs an actual login and outbound GET /iaas/api/about. It does not say what happens when no connection exists or when authentication fails.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler, front-loading what the tool reveals and following with the one optional behavior. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 one-parameter read-only diagnostic with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and what the flag does. The remaining gap is failure behavior — whether it reports a disconnected/expired state gracefully or errors out — which matters for a status tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter, and the schema description already reads 'Authenticate and call GET /iaas/api/about'. The description's 'Pass test=true to log in now' restates that with only marginal extra nuance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Show) and resource (the VCF Automation connection), then enumerates exactly what is reported: host, org, auth mode, token expiry, read-only flag, and loaded operation-tool counts per service. That enumeration makes it distinguishable from neighboring diagnostics such as vcfa_describe_operation or iaas_get_about.

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 implies a diagnostics/health-check use case and specifies the condition for the only parameter (test=true triggers login plus a /iaas/api/about call). It never states when to prefer this over the overlapping sibling tools (iaas_get_about, provider_get_current_session, identity_get_logged_in_user) or when not to call it.

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