check_connection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly implies a read-only operation through 'verifies' and 'fetches', and adds context that threshold values are sourced from the account rather than guessed. It does not explicitly mention side effects, but the described behavior is consistent and non-destructive.

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, front-loaded with the primary action ('Verifies') and includes an actionable directive ('Run this before building a workout'). Every sentence provides useful information without fluff.

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?

The tool is simple (0 parameters) and an output schema exists, so return values are externally documented. The description covers purpose, timing, and the source of thresholds, making it complete for an agent deciding when and why to invoke it.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so no parameter-level documentation is needed. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter info.

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 uses specific verbs ('verifies', 'fetches') and a clear resource ('connection', 'athlete's threshold values'). It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools by focusing on pre-workout threshold retrieval.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Run this before building a workout.' It also explains why, noting that threshold values come from the account. It does not name alternative tools, but the usage context is clear.

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