check_connection

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

With no annotations present the description carries the full burden, and it delivers real behavioral context: it reveals the connected:false outcome, that a message should be relayed to the user, and the silent token-renewal case. It stops short of describing the full return payload (e.g. success shape, any expiry or identity fields), but what it covers is the operationally important part.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary directive (call first) followed by the failure protocol and the one edge case. Every sentence earns its place; nothing is padding.

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 zero-parameter, no-annotations, no-output-schema tool the description covers purpose, ordering, failure handling, and the token-renewal edge case. The only gap is that return-field details (beyond the connected flag and message) must be inferred, which is minor given how simple the operation is.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument ping and does not fabricate 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?

States a specific verb+resource: verify the Speediance login is live. It is immediately distinguishable from every sibling (workouts, programs, preferences, facts) — none of which touch authentication. An agent knows exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly prescribes when to call it (FIRST in a session, before any other tool) and what to do with the result (stop if connected:false and relay the message). It also pre-empts a common false negative by clarifying that an expired token with a remembered password is renewed silently, so the agent won't misreport a failure.

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