conduyt_project_blue_status

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

With no annotations, the description does the heavy lifting: it declares this is a read of account state, enumerates the two possible connection states, and discloses that the API key comes back masked. That masking note is real behavioral context an agent could not get elsewhere. It does not say what the response looks like when the connection is missing or unconfigured, leaving one 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?

A single front-loaded sentence: the resource comes first, the enumerated return values follow in parentheses, and the permission requirement is placed last. The nested parentheticals are dense but every clause carries information. No filler sentences.

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 zero-parameter status tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what is read, the permission needed, the possible state values, and the sensitive-field handling. An agent can call it and interpret the result without further documentation.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument, account-scoped call rather than hinting at optional filters.

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 names a specific resource (Project Blue connection status) and enumerates what comes back: connection state (connected / not_configured), the masked API key, and current line assignments. That is far more specific than the name alone and separates it from conduyt_project_blue_assign_line and conduyt_project_blue_lines by implication. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.

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 only explicit guidance is the prerequisite 'Requires settings:view', which is genuinely useful for gating the call. It never says when to prefer this over conduyt_project_blue_lines or conduyt_project_blue_voice_status, nor when not to call it. Usage is inferable (check status before assigning lines) but not stated.

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