xray_check_connection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool validates authentication, which implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose whether it mutates any state, what happens on failure, or if it has side effects like rate limiting or logging. This is adequate for a simple check tool but lacks explicit safety or failure behavior details.

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 long, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what the tool does, and the second provides usage guidance. There is no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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?

This is a simple zero-parameter tool with no output schema, so the description should explain return values or success/failure conditions. It does not explicitly state what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, message, error). The description is sufficient for basic understanding but lacks details about the outcome of the validation, which is a gap given the absence of an output schema.

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, and the schema is empty, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is applied for zero-parameter tools. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable because there are no parameters to describe.

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: 'Validates authentication against the configured Xray deployment (cloud or datacenter) and Jira instance.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like xray_get_test_execution or xray_create_test_plan, which focus on test data operations.

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 explicitly says 'Call this first to verify credentials are working before using other tools.' This provides a clear usage context and sequencing, telling the agent when to invoke this tool relative to others. It implies that other tools should only be used after this check succeeds, though it doesn't name specific alternatives.

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