status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or has any latency considerations. Although the purpose implies a simple connectivity check, the absence of any explicit behavioral disclosure is a notable gap.

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 with zero fluff. The primary action ('Check connectivity... and report how many flows are captured') is front-loaded, immediately followed by usage guidance ('Start here when something is not working'). Every word earns its place.

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 (no parameters, an output schema is present), the description sufficiently covers the purpose and usage. The existence of an output schema means return values are documented separately, so the description need not explain them. The tool is a simple status check, and the description provides all necessary context for an agent to call it correctly.

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 description need not explain parameter behavior. The schema coverage is 100% (no properties), and the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter info because none exist, which is appropriate.

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 action: 'Check connectivity to mitmweb' and the outcome: 'report how many flows are captured.' This specific verb+resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_flows (which lists flows) and flow_stats (which likely gives detailed statistics). The phrase 'Start here when something is not working' adds a clear diagnostic role, cementing its unique purpose.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Start here when something is not working.' This implies it is the first diagnostic step when connectivity or flow capture is suspected to be failing. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of the full 5.

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