Connect to ~alter

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond those flags by describing the call as a handshake and outlining what it returns, which helps an agent understand it as a lightweight connection verification rather than a substantive query. It does not contradict any annotations.

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 three sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the return contents are listed compactly, and the usage instruction is placed before the redundant parameter note. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent handshake tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool does, what it returns, and when to call it. No additional behavioral or prerequisite information is necessary for an agent to invoke it 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the description explicitly notes 'No parameters required,' matching the empty input schema. With no parameters to document, the description is appropriately sufficient and earns the baseline for a zero-parameter tool.

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 states a specific action ('first handshake with ~alter') and enumerates the concrete return contents: server version, authentication status, trust tier, and available tool counts. This clearly differentiates it from sibling identity/status tools like alter_whoami or alter_login_status by framing it as a connection-establishment 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 gives explicit usage timing: 'Call this once to confirm your connection works before making other queries.' This is clear context for when to invoke it, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it.

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