apic_test_connection

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication requirements, or idempotency. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it fails to clarify whether the tool is read-only or modifies state. The term 'test' implies a safe operation, but this is not explicit.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose, but it lacks some valuable detail. It is not verbose, but could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness.

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 should give some indication of what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure, connection status). It does not. For a connection test, the agent needs to know how to interpret the result. The description is incomplete for effective use.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, but it could have explicitly noted that no arguments are required. However, this is not a significant gap.

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 action 'test connection' and the resource 'Cisco APIC controller'. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools, which are mostly retrieval or analysis tools. However, it could be more precise by indicating what 'test' entails (e.g., API reachability, authentication).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it could mention that this should be used before other APIC operations to verify connectivity. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or scenarios.

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