get_connection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: the automatic connection behavior and the security guarantee that the persistent installation key is never exposed via MCP. That is meaningful behavioral disclosure an agent would not get from the annotations alone.

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 purpose, then connection behavior, then the security caveat. No filler, though the second sentence is a minor tangent for an agent whose only job is to call the tool.

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?

A no-parameter, no-output-schema tool where the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does cover the key points: what is retrieved, how the plugin connects, and what is conditionally returned. Slightly incomplete on what the returned status actually contains (connected/disconnected? key presence?).

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description uses the space instead to explain the conditional return value (pairingCode only for the manual plugin), which is useful given there is no output schema.

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 and resource: 'Get local bridge status.' That is enough to distinguish it from the design-manipulation siblings (create_node, get_node, set_selection), which all operate on document objects rather than a local bridge. It stops short of saying what 'bridge' is or what the status contains, but the purpose is clear.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the note that the installed plugin connects automatically and that pairingCode is only returned for the manual plugin hints at when this call matters (manual setup scenarios), but there is no explicit 'use this when / not when' or alternative tool named. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer.

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