test_brave_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool tests 'connection and configuration,' implying a read-only diagnostic operation, but does not specify details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the test entails (e.g., whether it performs an actual search or just pings the API). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated clearly in the first sentence. The additional 'Args' section is concise and adds necessary parameter information without redundancy. There is no wasted text, making it efficient, though it could be slightly more structured for better readability.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter, but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, and how it differs from siblings. The presence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, so the description need not explain them, but overall it leaves gaps in guiding effective tool selection.

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 description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema: it explains that the 'query' parameter is a 'Test query to search for' with a default of 'test'. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the schema only provides basic type and title information. The description compensates slightly by clarifying the parameter's purpose, but it does not elaborate on format, constraints, or how the query is used in the test, resulting in a baseline score.

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 purpose: 'Test the Brave Search API connection and configuration.' It specifies the action ('Test') and the target ('Brave Search API connection and configuration'), which is clear and specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'brave_search_and_fetch', which might also involve API interactions, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'brave_search_and_fetch' or 'get_server_info', which could be related for testing or configuration purposes. This lack of context makes it unclear when this tool is the appropriate choice.

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