Connection status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares that this is a safe read operationwed, and the description does not contradict it. The description adds a workflow hint but does not disclose behavior such as possible return values, failure modes, or the exact connection status shape; annotations carry the safety burden, so a mid score is appropriate.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded and the usage guidance is placed second, making the most important information immediately accessible.

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 status tool, the description gives the agent enough to know why and when to call it. The only minor gap is that no output schema exists and the description does not specify the exact shape or values of the returned status, but the core purpose is still fully actionable.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter semantic burden on the description. The baseline of 4 applies because nothing needs to be clarified or compensated for in this dimension.

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 states a specific action ('Return the connection status with the Chrome extension') and clearly identifies the resource. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling bookmark CRUD tools, which all operate on bookmarks rather than the extension 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?

The description explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Check this first when a bookmark operation fails.' This gives the agent a clear trigger and precedence rule, and no alternative tool competes for this diagnostic role.

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