omv_connection_info

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. The text implies a read-only operation ('Show how this server connects'), but it does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, or error behavior. It's a minimal disclosure, not covering important behavioral details.

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, front-loaded with purpose and immediate use cases. Every word earns its place; no unnecessary content.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain the return format or what fields the connection info will contain. For a 'smoke test' tool, an agent would likely need to know what to expect in the response. The description is too sparse for full completeness.

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, so the parameter semantic burden is none. Per rubric, a baseline of 4 applies since there are no parameters to document.

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 purpose: 'Show how this server connects and whether that works.' This is a specific informative action, distinct from sibling tools like omv_call or omv_shell. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself by naming alternatives, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 explicit use cases: 'Useful as a first smoke test and when troubleshooting connectivity.' This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the identified scenarios are specific enough.

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