check_connection

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 states the tool checks if the plugin is running, but doesn't explain what 'running' means (e.g., active connection, loaded state), potential errors (e.g., timeout, missing plugin), or the return format (e.g., boolean, status message). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, clear sentence: 'Check if the IDA plugin is running'. It's front-loaded with the core action, has no unnecessary words, and efficiently conveys the purpose without redundancy. This is an excellent example of conciseness in tool descriptions.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimal but adequate for basic understanding. However, it lacks context about what 'running' entails, potential outcomes, or integration with other tools. With no annotations and no output schema, more detail on behavior would improve completeness for agent use.

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 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly avoids mentioning any. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't mislead about them.

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: 'Check if the IDA plugin is running' specifies the verb 'check' and the resource 'IDA plugin', making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_metadata' or other status-checking tools that might exist, keeping it from a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing the plugin to be installed, or suggest other tools for related tasks like verifying plugin configuration. This lack of context leaves the agent with minimal usage direction.

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