check_connection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Safe, non-disruptive', which is equivalent to a read-only hint, and adds 'from AussieBB's end' to clarify the scope. It does not mention authentication or return format, but the key safety aspect is covered.

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 front-loaded, starting with 'Instant ISP-side connectivity check'. It includes safety, priority, and parameter guidance in a few short fragments. Slightly choppy but every part 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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to use it, and what the parameter accepts. The question 'is the service connected' implies a boolean answer, making return info less critical. Overall, it provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 only defines 'service' as a string with default 'all'. The description adds crucial detail: 'a site alias | service_id | all (default)', fully explaining accepted values. This is high-value beyond the schema, especially given 0% schema description coverage.

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 'Instant ISP-side connectivity check' and 'is the service connected from AussieBB's end?', which specifies the verb (check) and resource (connection). It distinguishes itself from siblings like loopback_test and service_outages by emphasizing the ISP-side perspective and its role as the first diagnostic.

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 'THE first diagnostic to run', giving clear priority and usage context. It also notes the tool is safe and non-disruptive, implying it can be run without concern. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong.

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