get_connection_server_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get detailed health information' – it does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires special permissions, whether it can fail for disconnected servers, or what 'detailed health' includes. For a health-check tool, an agent would benefit from knowing it is safe/read-only and what kind of data it returns.

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 with no wasted words. It clearly states the action and resource. It could add a brief note about usage or output, but as-is it is concise and scannable.

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 has a single required parameter, a 100% schema-described parameter, and an output schema (not shown but indicated as present). The description is minimal but sufficient for an agent to know what the tool does. However, without annotations, the lack of behavioral context (read-only safety, error conditions) and lack of explicit relationship to sibling tools leaves some gaps. It is adequate but not rich.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the only parameter, server_id, is described as 'Connection server ID'. The description adds the context that the ID refers to a specific Connection Server, but it does not explain how to obtain the ID (e.g., from list_connection_servers) or any format expectations. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed health information for a specific Connection Server'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling 'get_connection_server' (which likely returns general server info) and 'get_infrastructure_health' (which covers overall health). It lacks an explicit contrast with siblings, but the resource and scope are 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?

The description implies usage: call when you need detailed health for one Connection Server, identified by server_id. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'get_connection_server' or 'get_infrastructure_health'. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer, but no explicit routing guidance is provided.

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