pbi_test_connection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a trivial query is executed, which implies a lightweight, likely read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state side effects, failure behavior, or prerequisites (e.g., a selected model), leaving some ambiguity.

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 short sentence that delivers the core message without any fluff. It is front-loaded and entirely relevant.

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?

For a zero-parameter connection test, the description is adequately complete. It states the action (validates connection) and method (trivial query). The presence of an output schema covers return values, so the description does not need to elaborate further. It could mention that a model must be active, but this is implied.

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 the schema already provides complete coverage. The description adds no parameter details, but the baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing to document.

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's purpose: validating the connection to the active model using a trivial query. It uses a specific verb ('Valida') and resource ('conexion al modelo activo'), and the method ('consulta trivial') distinguishes it from broader tools like pbi_health_check.

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 the tool should be used to test connectivity to the active model, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as pbi_health_check or pbi_session_info. There is no direct guidance on when-not-to-use or alternatives, so the usage is implied rather than explicit.

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