getConnectorStatus

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and 'for every configured connector' discloses the scope (all connectors, not filtered). It does not mention return format or potential errors, but for a simple list operation, the behavior is adequately transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and the target resource, achieving high clarity in minimal space.

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 simplicity of the tool (no params, no output schema), the description covers the core behavior well. It names the output content ('health and sync state') and the scope ('every connector'). It could mention response format or that it returns a list, but that is implied by 'List.' Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to use it correctly.

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, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per calibration, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when description need not add parameter details. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is fine here.

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 ('List') with a clear resource ('Nimbus connector health and sync state') and scope ('every configured connector'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on indexes, PRs, deployments, DORA metrics, and incidents.

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 implies a clear use case: checking connector health and sync status across all connectors. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the context is unambiguous and the sibling tools are sufficiently different that no confusion arises.

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