paserver_check_connection

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the operation is a read-only reachability probe, specifically listing the two stages and clarifying that no password-based handshake happens. This fully informs the agent of what behavior to expect.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place: what it does, the fallback guidance, the practical use case, then a compact Args block. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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 a moderate parameter count and no annotations, but the description covers behavior, limitations, use case, and parameters thoroughly. An output schema exists, so not describing return values is acceptable. It is complete enough for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: profile gets a concrete example ('MACBOOK'), timeout gets meaning ('TCP connect timeout in seconds. Default 3.'), and studio_root is marked optional with its purpose as Studio install root. This adds meaningful meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Two-stage reachability check for a PAServer Connection Profile.' It enumerates exactly the two stages, names what it does not do (full protocol handshake), and distinguishes itself from file-transfer tools by positioning this as the pre-flight check.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Use this as the first pre-flight step before iOS/macOS/Linux builds or before paserver_get/paserver_put.' It also gives the alternative path: for full validation, run a file-transfer tool. This is clear, actionable guidance for selection.

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