Check OneGuard connection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds context beyond that by naming the session/initialization state it checks and whether the API key may write. It is clearly non-mutating with no contradiction; exact response shape is omitted, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Two sentences, each carrying distinct information: verification checks/return values and usage timing. The description is front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler.

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?

For a parameterless read-only status tool with annotations, the description covers purpose, key return values, and invocation timing. It does not specify exact output field names/types, but given the absence of an output schema, what it provides is sufficient 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 and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. No parameter explanation is needed, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior and output rather than input.

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 a specific verb ('Verifies') and resource (OneGuard connection) with three concrete checks: CLI installed, session initialized, and backend reachable. It also describes the return value, making it easy to distinguish this health-check tool from sibling tools like oneguard_init or oneguard_env_status.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this first when something is not working, or before a batch of changes.' It does not list when-not-to-use or alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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