debug_connection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'detailed information' but does not specify what that includes (e.g., error logs, response times, status codes), nor does it cover permissions, rate limits, or side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. However, it could be more front-loaded with key details, but overall, it is appropriately sized for its 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?

Given the tool's complexity (debugging a connection), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'detailed information' includes, how results are returned, or error handling, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's context and usage.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'endpoint' documented as 'Endpoint to test (default: /news)'. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining why '/news' is the default or how other endpoints might behave. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation 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 the tool 'Debug[s] N Lobby connection with detailed information', which provides a clear verb ('Debug') and resource ('N Lobby connection'), but it lacks specificity about what 'debug' entails (e.g., testing connectivity, logging errors) and does not differentiate from siblings like 'health_check' or 'test_calendar_endpoints'. This makes the purpose somewhat vague.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios for debugging connections, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selection among siblings such as 'health_check' or 'test_trpc_endpoint'.

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