Test site connection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint false, but the description adds value by detailing exactly what checks are performed and that it reports the specific misconfiguration. This goes beyond the annotations, telling the agent exactly what behavior the call will exhibit, including result reporting rather than simply success/failure.

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?

Second sentence earns its place by giving actionable usage guidance, and the first sentence is packed with specific details about the checks. It's appropriately sized—no wasted words—and front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It states the input (which site) and the full range of outputs the tool reports. It doesn't need to explain a return format beyond naming the reported items. No obvious missing context for an agent to use it correctly.

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 schema description already covers site_id 100%, including its optionality and default behavior. The tool description itself does not add parameter-specific detail, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 connectivity and authentication') with a clear resource ('a site') and enumerates exactly what it reports (REST reachability, credential mapping, roles/capabilities, plugin status). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_site or site_info, which are about retrieving site data rather than diagnosing connectivity.

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 an explicit trigger: 'Run this first when the site is behaving strangely — it names the specific misconfiguration rather than a generic failure.' This is a clear when-to-use instruction. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the 'run first' ordering implies this is the diagnostic entry point, which is strong guidance.

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