connector_status

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

The description explicitly discloses that secrets are never returned, which is a key behavioral trait. However, no other traits like idempotency or required permissions are mentioned. No annotations exist to offset this, so the description does well but could be more comprehensive.

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?

One sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with the action 'Show whether'. Very concise and efficient.

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 is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and a behavioral promise. However, it could mention the return format or example output for full completeness.

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 no parameters, and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description does not need to add parameter meaning. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate.

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 shows whether Metabase and PostHog connector environment variables are configured, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like auth_status or catalog_status.

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 usage for checking connector configuration but does not explicitly state when to use or provide alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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