get_connection_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb '获取' implies a read operation, which suggests non-mutating behavior, but the description does not explicitly state that it is read-only or disclose whether the refreshHealth option causes side effects such as network calls or state changes.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every element earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler text.

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 is simple, has an output schema, and the parameter is schema-documented, so the description need not explain return values or parameter syntax. However, it lacks any usage context, such as when to check connection status or how this relates to connection lifecycle siblings, leaving selection somewhat under-specified.

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%, so the single optional parameter refreshHealth is fully documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already explains the parameter's purpose.

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 a specific verb ('获取' / get) and the resource: connection, tool profile, and listener lifecycle status. This distinguishes it from sibling getters like get_current_page and get_value, which target different resources.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as connect_devtools, disconnect_devtools, or reconnect_devtools. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use solely from the name.

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