nex_get_connection_info

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates a safe read operation, so the bar for additional behavioral disclosure is lower. The description adds the scoping constraint 'running' environments, implying that environments must be running, which is useful context. However, it does not describe what 'status' entails, possible errors, or return format. This is a modest addition beyond the annotation.

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 redundant words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose, though it is perhaps too terse to fully inform the agent. Still, it earns its place and is appropriately sized for a simple inspect operation.

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 has two required parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not clarify what 'status' includes, what the response will contain, or how the parameters map to the inspection. The name suggests 'connection info' but the description reduces it to 'status,' losing nuance. The description needs to elaborate on return values and parameter significance to be minimally viable.

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 0%, and the description provides no information about the parameters teamId and windowId. The description does not mention that windowId can be an array, nor explain what these identifiers refer to or how they affect the inspection. With no parameter documentation in either the schema or the description, the agent is left without any guidance on how to populate the required fields.

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 'Inspect the status of running NexBrowser environments' with a clear verb ('Inspect') and resource ('status of running NexBrowser environments'). It is specific enough to indicate a read operation on environment status, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like nex_list_browsers or nex_browser_connect, which could also be about environment/connection state.

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 such as nex_list_browsers or nex_browser_connect. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.

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