Check admin API access

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: it reports two distinct checks (basic-auth health check and admin session identity) and notes that the result depends on whichever credentials are configured. This gives the agent a clear sense of what the tool will actually do.

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 focused sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence enumerates exactly what is reported, so every sentence earns its place.

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, read-only connectivity check, the description is largely complete: it states the purpose and the two reported results. It does not detail the exact response shape, but the low complexity and read-only/idempotent annotations reduce the need for that detail.

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 input schema is empty, so baseline 4 applies. The description's mention of 'whichever credentials are configured' alludes to configuration rather than parameters, which is appropriate since no parameters exist.

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 and resource: verify connectivity and credentials against the CCX admin API. It then clarifies exactly what is reported, the admin REST health check and admin session identity, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on VPCs, datastores, users, or billing.

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 context of use is clear: run this tool to verify connectivity and credentials against the CCX admin API before other admin operations. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but no genuine alternative exists among the siblings, which all perform different admin actions.

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