test_connection

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds that the tool calls the /me endpoint, disclosing the concrete mechanism and reinforcing that no mutation occurs. It provides useful behavioral context beyond the 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?

A single, direct sentence conveys both the purpose and the implementation. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler or redundant wording.

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 zero-parameter, read-only connectivity check, the description is sufficiently complete. It does not describe response formats or error behavior, but given the tool's simplicity and the readOnlyHint annotation, this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's behavior rather than parameter details, which are nonexistent.

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 a specific action ('Verify') and a specific resource ('API base URL and token') while naming the exact endpoint used ('/me'). This distinguishes it from data-fetching siblings like get_user or get_users, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to validate that the API base URL and token are configured correctly. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but its role as a connection check is evident from the wording and the sibling tool list.

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