check_threads_connection

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

The readOnlyHint already declares a safe read; the description adds that the tool surfaces the real handle and account_id before confirmation. It does not describe behavior when no connection exists, but the annotation carries the core safety profile.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. The action and the timing constraint are both immediately clear.

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 read-only check with no output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, and the main returned fields. It could be more complete by mentioning what happens if no account is connected, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately documents the key returned identifiers instead of parameter behavior.

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 uses a specific verb ('Показать') and names the resources ('handle и account_id'), so the tool's purpose is clear. It distinguishes the check from account confirmation by timing, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like start_threads_connection.

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?

It clearly positions the tool before account confirmation, giving usable workflow context. It does not state exclusions or name alternatives such as start_threads_connection or confirm_threads_account.

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