test_connection

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose side effects. It only says 'проверка подключения' (connection check) without explicitly stating that it is read-only, does not modify state, or what happens on failure. This is a gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 short and front-loaded, with a one-sentence purpose followed by a compact parameter list. No wasted words; every sentence 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?

For a moderate-parameter tool, it covers purpose and parameter meanings, and an output schema exists to explain return values. However, it omits behavioral details like whether the check is read-only and preconditions for use, but for a connection test tool this is mostly complete.

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 description includes an Args section explaining each parameter, including allowed values for import_scope ('one_schema or whole_database') and import_mode ('replace or merge') and clarifying agent_schema_uuid's role for one_schema. This adds meaning beyond the bare JSON schema.

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 first sentence clearly states 'Запустить проверку подключения агента к базе данных' (Run a connection check of the agent to the database), a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling CRUD tools. The scope (agent to database) is explicit.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only defines what it does without indicating prerequisites, exclusions, or situations where another tool (e.g., get_data_source) might be more appropriate.

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