check_connectivity

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

The description discloses that this is an active probe (ACTIVE), that it runs from inside the pod, and that it requires a special permission flag. However, with no annotations provided, it does not disclose side effects, timeouts, or whether the connection attempt could trigger alarms or resource usage.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the core action and permission requirement. It is concise and avoids filler, though the bracketed '[probe, ACTIVE]' prefix is slightly cryptic.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core action and permission but does not explain how pod vs service selection works, what the diagnosis output looks like, or what failure modes are reported. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

Schema coverage is 60%, and the description adds context for host and port (the target of the TCP connect) but does not clarify the relationship between pod and service parameters, nor the namespace requirement beyond what the schema already says. The description adds some meaning but leaves ambiguity about mutually exclusive or alternative parameters.

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 ('TCP connect') and resource ('host:port from inside the pod'), and adds latency and failure-mode diagnosis. It is distinguishable from siblings like resolve_dns and get_open_connections, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 implies an active network diagnostic use case and mentions a required permission (DIAG_ALLOW_ACTIVE_CHECKS), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like resolve_dns or get_endpoints, nor when not to use it.

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