check_connection

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

Full disclosure of behavior: returns {ready: true/false, issues: [...]}, explains the design rationale (proving token works by reading something), and distinguishes between success and failure outputs. No annotations to contradict.

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?

Concise yet comprehensive: each sentence serves a purpose. Front-loaded with purpose, followed by parameter details, return format, and usage advice. 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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is fully complete. Covers purpose, parameter logic, return value structure, and usage context without 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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description thoroughly explains the project_id parameter: it overrides the default, is required when no default is set, and why. Adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states the tool verifies server connectivity to Vikunja and reads a project. The verb 'verify' and resource 'Vikunja' are specific, and it is distinct from sibling task tools.

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?

Explicitly advises to run this first if anything seems off, explains when project_id is required, and why no project-less health check exists. Provides clear context for usage.

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