nebula_test_connection

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing that the response is redacted, which is a meaningful behavioral trait beyond the annotations. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the action ('Test') before the output detail ('return only redacted settings'). Every word earns 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?

With no parameters, an output schema present, and a clear one-sentence description, nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly. The redaction note and connection-testing purpose fully cover the low-complexity context.

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 coverage is effectively complete, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline of 4 applies here because no parameter documentation is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Test') and identifies the resource ('configured YueShu connection'), then clarifies the scope of the response ('return only redacted settings'). This makes the tool's purpose immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like nebula_execute_query or nebula_get_graph_schema.

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 'Test the configured YueShu connection' clearly implies use as a connectivity/health check before graph operations, and the sibling list reinforces that it is not for querying or schema work. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use statements or named alternatives, but the context is clear enough to guide selection.

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