check_anki_connection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions checking connection and getting decks/models, but lacks details on behavioral traits: it doesn't specify what 'check connection' entails (e.g., ping, authentication), what happens on failure, whether it's read-only (implied but not stated), or any rate limits. The description is minimal and misses key operational 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose clearly. The 'Args:' section adds necessary parameter context without redundancy. However, the structure could be more integrated (e.g., merging description and args), and there's minor room for trimming (e.g., 'Optional' is implied by schema). Overall efficient but not perfect.

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 1 parameter, no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter hint, but lacks context on usage guidelines, behavioral details, or integration with siblings. The output schema likely handles return values, so that gap is mitigated. However, for a connection-checking tool, more operational context would be beneficial.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds some meaning by explaining 'anki_api_key' as 'Optional AnkiConnect API key', which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's title 'Anki Api Key'. However, with 1 parameter and low coverage, it doesn't fully compensate—e.g., it doesn't explain format or when to provide the key. Baseline adjusted upward slightly due to minimal param info.

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's purpose: 'Check connection to Anki and get available decks/models'. It uses specific verbs ('check', 'get') and identifies the resource (Anki connection, decks/models). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sync_anki' which might also involve connection checking, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., use this first to verify connectivity before other operations) or contrast with siblings like 'sync_anki' or 'search_anki_notes'. The only implied usage is checking connection, but no explicit when/when-not instructions are given.

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