eterna_connection_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'report' strongly implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation, and the content is about querying status and returning instructions. However, it does not explicitly state that it performs no writes or makes no external calls, nor does it mention any potential delays or rate limits. It is adequate but not explicit about its non-destructive nature.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Report whether this server is bridging...') and then details the specifics. There is no redundant or filler language; every clause adds meaningful information about what the tool returns and when authentication guidance is given.

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 has no output schema, so the description should fully clarify what the agent will receive. It mentions the items reported (token source, endpoint URL, number of remote tools) and the auth instructions, but it does not specify the response format (e.g., whether it returns a JSON object, a boolean, or a human-readable string). An agent calling this tool would not know how to parse the result. This is a meaningful gap for a status 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain about parameter semantics. Per the rubric, 0 parameters warrants a baseline score of 4. The description adds no parameter-related content, but none is needed.

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 the tool's function: it reports whether the server bridges the official Eterna MCP endpoint, and specifies the details it provides (token source, endpoint URL, number of remote tools) plus authentication guidance if not bridged. This is a specific verb-resource pairing and distinctly differentiates from sibling tools like fee estimates or setup guides.

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 implies usage by stating what it reports, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions. For example, it doesn't state that this is the first step in troubleshooting or setup. The 'how to authenticate if it is not' clause hints at a use case, but it's not explicit enough for an agent to know when to invoke it over, say, eterna_setup_guide.

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