get_connection_status

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

The description openly discloses network contact and credential rotation ('May contact Xiaomi, authenticate and rotate credentials in the local keyring'), which complements the readOnlyHint=false annotation. It also adds conditional behavior not in the annotations: while syncing, it 'reports existing connection state instead of probing.'

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 compact and every sentence earns its place: purpose, side effects/prerequisites, return fields, conditional behavior, and the alternative tool are all covered without redundancy. It front-loads the main purpose before adding supporting detail.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields and conditional additions such as connection_state, region, last_connection_error, and sync_in_progress. It provides enough behavioral and environmental context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, including prerequisites, side effects, and sync-time behavior.

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 no per-parameter explanation is required; the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description still adds useful input-level guidance by requiring interactive CLI setup and forbidding credentials in tool arguments, though that is mostly a usage constraint rather than parameter meaning.

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 first sentence names the exact operation ('Check whether the configured Mi Fitness account can connect') and positions it 'before requesting a sync,' clearly distinguishing it from sync_data. It also explicitly routes coverage queries to get_data_coverage, preventing confusion with a sibling tool.

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 gives a clear precondition ('Requires local interactive CLI setup, never credentials in tool arguments') and a temporal trigger ('before requesting a sync'). It also provides an explicit alternative with 'For cached date coverage use get_data_coverage' and notes that it 'does not sync health records,' acting as a when-not condition.

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