ateam_test_connector

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool calls the connector tool and returns the result, and notes the connector must be running. However, it does not mention potential side effects of calling live connector tools, authentication requirements, or error behavior, which could be important for a testing utility that may execute real operations.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what it does, the second explains when to use it and the required precondition. No filler or 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?

The description is complete for a testing tool of moderate complexity. It covers the purpose, usage context, examples, and a key prerequisite. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the phrase 'get the result,' and the schema already documents all parameters. It could be richer by mentioning response format, but current coverage is sufficient for an agent to invoke 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 input schema covers all four parameters with descriptions, including examples for 'tool' and 'connector_id.' The description adds useful context by giving example tool names and noting that 'args' are optional. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not significantly increase parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Call a tool on a running connector and get the result.' It clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling testing tools (e.g., ateam_test_skill, ateam_test_pipeline) by focusing on connector tools and providing concrete examples like 'triggers.list' and 'entities.list'.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to test individual connector tools... without deploying to a client,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also gives a prerequisite: 'The connector must be connected and running.' It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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