Test connection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what it returns but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only, non-destructive operation, or mention any potential side effects. However, the name 'test_connection' implies a safe, non-mutating action, and the description is not misleading. It provides adequate but minimal transparency.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('Verify connectivity') and then lists exactly what is returned. Every word contributes value; there is no redundant or extraneous information.

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 (no input parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It clearly states the purpose and enumerates the specific information returned, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's functionality or expected result.

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 there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description correctly makes no mention of parameters. According to the rubric, when there are 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description meets this by being clear without unnecessary parameter details.

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 verifies connectivity and returns specific session details (version, account, user, role, warehouse, database, schema). This is a specific verb+resource (verify connectivity) and distinctly separates it from sibling tools that list or describe data structures.

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 context is clear: this is a connectivity/health check tool to be used before other operations. While it doesn't explicitly state 'use this before other tools' or provide exclusion criteria, the purpose is self-evident from the name and description, and the sibling tools are obviously different in function.

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