IRC connection status

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which already communicate safety and scope. The description adds only the word 'current,' which is minor. It does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as what statuses are returned, whether the account parameter is optional in practice, or any edge cases. Thus it meets the baseline but adds little beyond 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, it lacks information about the behavior of the 'account' parameter (e.g., what 'status' includes, whether omitting account shows global status) and offers no usage context. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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 input schema lists one parameter 'account' with no description (0% schema coverage). The description says 'IRC account,' which gives a hint about its meaning, but it does not explain whether the parameter is required, what format it expects, or what happens if omitted. Given the low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately.

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 the tool's function: 'Show the current connection status for an IRC account.' It uses a specific verb ('show') and a distinct resource ('current connection status'), which effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like irc_whois or irc_list_networks.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It merely states what it does. While the purpose is clear, the lack of any contextual usage information means the agent must infer when to invoke it.

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