remote_test

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 discloses that the tool executes a 'harmless marker command,' which signals non-destructive behavior, but it does not describe the marker command's nature, the expected result, or any permission requirements. This is more informative than a bare statement, but still lacks depth.

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: 'Test a saved or ad-hoc connection by executing a harmless marker command.' Every word contributes meaning, with no repetition or filler.

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?

Despite lacking annotations, the tool is simple: two optional parameters and an output schema (which covers return values). The description gives the core purpose and safety indication, and the output schema handles return details. It lacks explicit prerequisites or when-to-use guidance, but for a connection-test tool it is reasonably complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter semantics. It does so by mapping 'saved' to the profile parameter and 'ad-hoc' to the connection parameter, giving useful context. However, it does not explain parameter types, how they interact, or what happens if both or neither are provided, leaving gaps.

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 tool's function: 'Test a saved or ad-hoc connection' – a specific verb (test), resource (connection), and scope (saved or ad-hoc). It distinguishes itself from siblings like remote_execute or remote_run_program by emphasizing the harmless, verification-focused nature of the test.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for testing connections, not for executing actual commands. It implies usage for validation, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions; however, the word 'harmless' strongly suggests it is not for real work, and sibling tool names like remote_execute offer implicit alternatives.

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