remarkable_status

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

The description provides extensive behavioral details beyond the annotations: it explains the returned capability matrix, the differences between transports, and the optional read-only mode. This significantly enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 well-structured with <usecase>, <instructions>, and <examples> tags. Every sentence adds value, and the most important content (purpose and capability matrix) is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 no parameters and an existing output schema (not shown but indicated), the description fully covers what the tool returns (authentication status, active transport, document count, capability matrix) and when to use it. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description correctly adds no parameter information, which is appropriate given zero parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 it checks connection status, active transport, and write capabilities. It uniquely identifies the tool's purpose among siblings, as no other tool serves this status-checking role.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to verify your connection, choose a transport, or troubleshoot.' It implies the appropriate context but does not provide explicit when-not or alternatives. Still, it offers clear guidance for when to invoke the tool.

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