connectivity_status

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

Description declares read-only and no side effects, but without annotations it carries full burden. It covers output format but lacks details on error handling, timeouts, or authentication requirements. Adequate but could be more transparent.

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?

Three sentences front-load purpose, output details, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

With no output schema, description explains return values (per-endpoint status with pid, http status, notes). Covers purpose and usage well, but lacks details on potential errors or connectivity failures. Slightly incomplete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with the 'format' parameter already documented. Description adds no extra parameter details beyond what schema provides, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 shows live state of all Sovereign Stack endpoints, listing specific endpoints and return status. It differentiates itself from siblings like 'stack_write_check' by focusing on connectivity rather than write capability.

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 states when to use: 'Use this when you want to confirm the stack is reachable + writes will land before doing critical work.' No exclusions or alternatives mentioned, but context is clear.

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