get_connection_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: it is side-effect free and never writes. It also reveals the effective server mode (read-only vs write-enabled), which is meaningful context. It stops short of stating auth requirements or confirming idempotency/output shape beyond the field list.

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 verb and subject are front-loaded, and the trailing safety sentence is short and useful. The long enumeration of returned fields is somewhat list-heavy, especially since an output schema already exists, but it remains readable and earns most of its space.

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 introspection tool with an output schema, the description is essentially complete. The only redundancy is enumerating return fields the output schema already documents; otherwise nothing an agent needs to call it is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already conveys.

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 uses a specific verb (Return) and resource (connection and session details), then enumerates exactly what is returned: base URL, authenticated user, active team, server mode, enabled tool groups, and category catalogue. An agent can tell precisely what this tool provides without opening the schema.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus siblings such as get_current_user_capabilities or refresh_team_caps, nor any stated precondition. 'Always safe to call' describes safety, not usage context, leaving the agent to infer that it is a bootstrap/diagnostic call.

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