test_connection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently mentions side effects: opening a connection and starting an SSH tunnel if needed. It runs SELECT 1, which is read-only, but the description does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or that it does not modify data. It also does not cover failure behavior or whether the connection is kept open.

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 a single, compact sentence that conveys the essential behavior without any filler. It is front-loaded with the primary action and includes the conditional tunnel detail. No wasted words.

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 simple connectivity test, the description is mostly adequate, but it does not specify the return value or success/failure indicators. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, an agent might be unsure whether the tool returns a result or just signals success. It also does not mention error handling or edge cases (e.g., invalid connection name).

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 input schema describes the only parameter (name) as 'Connection name or id', which is clear and complete. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, a 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 states a specific verb ('Open... and run SELECT 1') and a clear resource (DBeaver connection). It is distinct from siblings like list_connections (which lists connections) or execute_query (which runs arbitrary queries). The purpose of testing connectivity is 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 usage is implied: it tests a connection by running SELECT 1, and it notes that it starts an SSH tunnel if needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. It relies on the context of sibling tools for differentiation.

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