mssql_test_connection

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

With no annotations present, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool tests connectivity and returns version/metadata, but says nothing about side effects, authentication needs, failure behavior, or whether any operation is read-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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's purpose and output.

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 tool is simple and the schema documents its optional parameters, but without annotations or an output schema, the description should say more about what 'metadata' includes and what happens on failed connections. It is adequate for basic invocation but leaves notable gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, which keeps it at the baseline 3 rather than higher.

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 names a specific action ('Test connection'), a clear resource ('MS SQL Server'), and a concrete outcome ('retrieve server version and metadata'). This distinguishes it cleanly from sibling tools that list databases, tables, describe schemas, or execute queries.

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 given about when to run this tool versus listing databases, describing tables, or executing queries. The intended use as a connectivity preflight is only implied by the name and description, with no explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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