mt_test_connection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose what 'test' involves (e.g., whether it performs a ping, checks permissions, or returns status codes), potential side effects, or error handling. This leaves the agent guessing about 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 a single, clear sentence in Japanese, front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured for its purpose.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns test results (e.g., success/failure, details). It doesn't explain what the tool returns or how to interpret outcomes, leaving gaps in understanding its full context and utility.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'connectionId' documented as optional and defaulting to the active connection. The description adds no meaning beyond this, as it doesn't mention parameters at all. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately covers the single parameter.

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 '接続をテストします' (tests the connection) states the verb and resource, but it's vague about what 'test' entails (e.g., connectivity, authentication, or functionality). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'mt_list_connections' or 'mt_use_connection', which involve connections but serve different purposes.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used before 'mt_use_connection' to verify connectivity or as a diagnostic step after errors. The description alone offers no context for usage decisions.

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