df_test_git_connection

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

The description explicitly states it writes to DataForge (matching readOnlyHint=false) and adds critical failure behavior: a failed check is returned as status=failed rather than an error, which is not derivable from annotations. This gives the agent important expectations about error handling. With annotations already covering idempotence and non-destructiveness, the description adds valuable behavior beyond the structured data, warranting a strong score.

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 only two sentences, with the most critical side effect ('WRITES TO DATAFORGE') front-loaded. The second sentence completes the action and failure semantics. Every word earns its place—no redundancy, no fluff. This is an example of efficient, well-structured description.

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 output schema, the agent is left without knowledge of the return format beyond the mention of 'status=failed'. The description covers the core action and failure mode but doesn't explain what the successful response contains (e.g., a status object, list of five checks, or just a boolean). Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and existing annotations, it is adequate but not complete enough for an agent to fully anticipate the result.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameter. It contextualizes connection_id as 'a saved Git connection', which is enough to infer that the integer ID references an existing git connection. However, it doesn't explain how to obtain that ID or any constraints (e.g., must be a valid git connection, not a database connection). For a single simple integer parameter, this minimal semantics is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 names a specific verb ('Run'), a resource ('a saved Git connection'), and an outcome ('refresh its stored status'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like df_get_git_connection (read) or df_update_git_connection (modify). The opening 'WRITES TO DATAFORGE' also signals it is not a read-only operation, setting it apart visually from getter tools. An agent can confidently select this tool to trigger a connection test without confusing it with other git connection 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 phrase 'for a saved Git connection' implies a prerequisite (the connection must already exist and be identified by connection_id), and the failure semantics ('reported as status=failed') hint at how to interpret results. However, there is no explicit statement about when to prefer this over df_get_git_connection (e.g., 'use this to actively test the connection, not just read the last status') or any when-not guidance. The usage context is implied rather than spelled out, so it earns a mid-range score.

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