get_connection_info

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It clearly states 'without spawning anything', implying no side effects. However, it could further clarify error handling or permissions needed, though the behavior is fairly transparent for a command-retrieval tool.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and efficiently covers usage context. No wasted words, well-structured.

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?

With 12 parameters including nested objects and no output schema, the description lacks detail on the return format (e.g., CLI command string, config file representation). It doesn't group parameters by tunnel type or provide examples, leaving the agent uncertain about what the output looks like.

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 description coverage is 100% with thorough parameter descriptions. The description adds no new semantics beyond stating it accepts same arguments as create_tunnel. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as schema already provides meaning.

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 retrieves a CLI command (and config file for load-balanced tunnels) for manual tunnel creation without spawning. It distinguishes itself from create_tunnel by specifying 'without spawning anything' and explicitly listing when to use it.

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 explicit conditions for use: when MCP cannot spawn subprocesses (e.g., cloud sandbox), when tunnel must outlive MCP, or when user prefers to run client themselves. It also notes it accepts same arguments as create_tunnel, guiding selection between siblings.

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