connection_info

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

Annotations already mark this readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns the active process-level roots, explains how each was resolved, and warns that root changes require restarting the MCP process. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the exact output, and the second gives actionable usage context plus an operational caveat. No filler or redundancy.

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 parameterless, read-only diagnostic tool with an output schema, this description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns, when to call it, and an important limitation (root changes need a restart). Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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 has zero parameters and the schema is fully self-explanatory with 100% coverage. The description does not need to elaborate on parameter semantics, and the baseline 4 for a parameterless tool 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return the exact active vault root and code-repository root used by this MCP process, including how each root was resolved.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and differentiates it from siblings like git_history or list_concepts, which serve different diagnostic or data operations.

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 description gives explicit guidance: 'Call first when a client may have stale configuration or multiple workspaces.' It also explains the restart constraint. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or named alternatives, but the provided context is specific enough to guide tool selection.

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