Connection status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It lists the returned fields and state values, which is useful, but it doesn't explicitly state that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or what happens if the connection ID is invalid. For a status query, this is implied but not explicit.

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, dense sentence that packs in the purpose, key return fields, state enum, and usage timing without any fluff. Every word adds value, making it highly efficient.

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 presence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, status query), the description is quite complete. It specifies what is returned, when to call it, and it's clearly scoped to one connection. The only gap is an explicit statement of preconditions or error handling, but this is minor.

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 schema fully documents the single parameter with 100% coverage, including its source (returned by teleport_connect or teleport_list_connections). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 indicates the tool reports the status of a single connection, listing specific fields like state, server, latency, inputs, and mode. It distinguishes itself from teleport_list_connections by stating 'one connection,' and the explicit state enum values add specificity.

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 phrase 'Poll this after teleport_connect' gives explicit timing guidance, indicating when this tool is appropriate. It doesn't explicitly rule out alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for checking a single connection's status.

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