hookbase_test_destination

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'returns response status and timing,' which is useful, but lacks critical details such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, potential side effects (e.g., triggering alerts), or error handling. For a connectivity test with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently convey the return value. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (testing connectivity) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic action and return types but misses behavioral details like side effects or error conditions. It is adequate for a simple test tool but could be more informative to fully guide an agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'destination_id' documented as 'The ID of the destination to test.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or validation rules. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('test connectivity by sending a test request') and resource ('to a destination'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like hookbase_get_destination (which retrieves destination details) or hookbase_update_destination (which modifies destination settings). The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the destination must be configured first), nor does it differentiate from similar tools like hookbase_get_destination (which might check status without testing connectivity). Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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