test_connection

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

The description discloses key safety traits: 'bounded read-only operation' indicates the tool is non-destructive and limited in scope. It also implies a precondition (connection must be enabled). However, with no annotations provided, the description carries a heavy burden and does not mention error behavior or whether state changes occur.

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 filler. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and safety profile, earning 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps: it does not provide usage alternatives or parameter guidance. It barely meets the minimum viable threshold for a simple test tool.

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 schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only refers to 'an enabled connection' and does not explain the connection_id format, where to obtain it, or any constraints. The parameter name is self-explanatory but the description adds no detail, which is insufficient for a 0% coverage case.

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 specifies a clear verb ('test'), a resource ('an enabled connection'), and a method ('bounded read-only operation'), which distinguishes it from siblings like health_check that likely target system health. However, 'test' is somewhat generic and could be more explicit about verifying connectivity.

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 phrase 'enabled connection' implies a precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or reference to alternative tools such as health_check or get_connection_capabilities. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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