oc_get_connection_info

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it returns MCP server URL, bearer token, settings page, instructions, and optionally live DevTools inspector URLs when Chrome is reachable. It also reveals the conditional behavior for the 'openchrome' host.

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 only two sentences long. The first sentence clearly states the core purpose, and the second sentence adds a crucial special case. No unnecessary words.

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 the single parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's behavior, return values, and special scenarios (e.g., Chrome reachability, --auto-connect mode). It is complete for a read-only info tool.

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?

Although the schema covers 100% of the parameter (host with enum), the description adds meaning by explaining each enum value's purpose and giving a concrete example for 'openchrome.' This goes beyond the schema's generic description.

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 starts with 'Get connection configuration for a web AI host,' which clearly states the verb (Get) and resource (connection configuration). The tool is distinct from its many siblings as it focuses on fetching configuration details for specific AI hosts.

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 provides a specific use-case for the 'openchrome' host value and explains what it returns when --auto-connect is active. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from alternatives like oc_connection_health or oc_devtools_url, which are siblings.

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