Connector Status

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

Description adds value beyond annotations by clarifying the tool does not expose secrets and listing specific data fields (profile, auth mode, credential broker readiness), though annotations already cover read-only and idempotent.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words efficiently communicates purpose and usage context.

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 zero parameters, existing output schema, and no complex behaviors, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and its key characteristics.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Baseline 4 is appropriate; description need not add parameter info.

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 specifies the tool retrieves 'remote connector profile, authentication mode, and credential broker readiness' without exposing secrets, distinguishing it from action-oriented siblings like ssh commands or file operations.

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 states 'Use this when... understanding the remote connector profile...' providing clear context, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like ssh_host_inspect or ssh_ping.

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