get_mcp_connection_status

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

Without annotations, the description adequately discloses that the tool is read-only and returns detailed information about active connections, tool registration status, and health metrics, setting appropriate expectations for a diagnostic tool.

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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the purpose and context, the second expands on returns. Highly efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, informational only) and the existence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand usage and expected return information.

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?

With zero parameters and schema coverage at 100%, the description doesn't need to add parameter details. The baseline score of 4 applies.

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 the verb 'Get' and resource 'MCP connection status', and specifies the purpose 'for debugging connection stability issues'. It distinguishes itself from sibling get_* tools by focusing on MCP connection.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('debugging connection stability issues', 'diagnosing disappearing tools'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or offer alternative tools.

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