connection_status

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

The description aligns with the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive) and adds minimal context by specifying the 'pinned PLAXIS role' as the scope. However, it doesn't explain what 'pinned' means or any side effects, though the annotations already cover safety.

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, focused sentence that directly states the tool's function with no unnecessary words.

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?

With zero parameters, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema present, the description sufficiently conveys the tool's purpose. The phrase 'pinned PLAXIS role' is domain-specific but likely understood within context.

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 no parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain any. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description doesn't introduce any parameter-related ambiguities.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('state for the pinned PLAXIS role'), clearly indicating it retrieves connection state. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'inspect' or 'model_state', though the tool name itself is distinctive.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'connect', 'disconnect', or 'inspect'. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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