get_connection_status

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

The description adds significant detail beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it explains that the tool 'round-trips a real ping through the bridge' and returns specific information (REAPER's version and latency) or an error message if the script isn't running. This fully discloses behavior without contradicting annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose; the second provides usage guidance and behavioral detail. The structure is efficient and front-loaded.

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, a single clear purpose), the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. An output schema exists to provide further detail on return values, so the description is complete for contextual understanding.

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 schema coverage is 100% (since there are none). The description does not need to add parameter details. With zero parameters, a 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 that the tool checks whether REAPER is running and the Orpheus bridge loop is alive, using a specific verb ('check') and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by advising to call it first, highlighting its role as a connectivity health check.

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 explicitly says 'Call this first,' providing clear usage guidance for when to use this tool. It does not specify when not to use or name alternatives, but the context implies it should precede other operations. Overall, it gives clear context without exclusions.

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