ateam_test_connector

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the action as calling a tool and getting results, implying it is non-destructive but does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or output format. Could be more specific about being a test only.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

No output schema, description does not explain what the result looks like or how errors are reported. It mentions prerequisite but lacks details on return format, pagination (if any), or error handling. For a test tool, knowing the response structure would be helpful.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. Description adds value with examples for 'tool' parameter and notes 'args' is optional, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the 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?

Description clearly states the action: 'Call a tool on a running connector and get the result.' It provides examples like 'triggers.list', 'entities.list', and 'google.command', making the resource specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ateam_bootstrap or ateam_conversation by focusing on testing individual connector tools.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Use this to test individual connector tools without deploying to a client.' Also states prerequisite: 'The connector must be connected and running.' This clearly tells when and how to use the tool, differentiating it from other sibling tools.

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