connector_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, which covers the safety profile. The description adds the specific return fields but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations and the listed return values imply. It is consistent with annotations but adds minimal new behavioral context.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The functional return list is front-loaded, and the use case follows immediately. Every word 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 simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough for an agent to understand what it returns and why to use it. It lacks a detailed response format, but the listed return items and the absence of a schema make that acceptable.

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 schema coverage is 100% (trivially, since the schema is empty). With no parameters, the description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it does not. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adequately serves the 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 the tool returns specific data (version, tool count, auth state, feature groups) and names its intended use (detect stale ChatGPT tool catalogs). It distinguishes itself from siblings like check_coros_auth by covering broader connector status rather than just auth.

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 explicitly provides a use case ('detect stale ChatGPT tool catalogs'), which gives clear context for when to use it. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of full comparative guidance.

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