connection_test

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

The description fully discloses all behavioral aspects: it resolves secrets, opens tunnels, connects, and runs a query. It explains the return format (ok=true/false with details) and explicitly states that an unreachable database is a valid result, not a tool error. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so excellently.

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: first defines the action, second describes the return. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information, and easy to parse.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the tool returns (ok=true with version, user, database, latency; or ok=false with code and hint). It covers all aspects of the tool's behavior, parameter nuances, and error handling, leaving no gaps.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining when the database parameter is required ('when the connection declares multiple databases'), which goes beyond the schema description.

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 tests a configured connection end-to-end, specifying the steps: resolves secrets, opens tunnel if configured, connects, runs a server-info query. It distinguishes from sibling tools like connection_list and connection_find by focusing on testing a single connection's functionality.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (testing a connection) and explains that an unreachable database is a valid test result. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like query or up_tunnel, though the purpose is distinct.

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