get_asset_processor_connection

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden, and it does add real context: the return payload shape and, importantly, the prerequisite 'Needs the AiCompanion gem 0.6.0+'. It does not describe failure behavior when the gem is absent or when the connection is down, so it falls just short of full disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the return shape, then the sibling contrast, then the prerequisite. Tight and well ordered, though the inline return-field listing partially duplicates the existing output schema.

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 an output schema already documents the return values, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: the sibling disambiguation and the gem version prerequisite. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter detail because none exist.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Report whether the editor is connected to the Asset Processor') and explicitly names the sibling it must not be confused with (get_asset_processor_status), explaining the semantic difference. An agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly distinguishes this tool from the alternative: get_asset_processor_status checks the process on the machine, whereas this asks the editor itself. The selecting condition is stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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