connection_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 states the tool tests the connection but does not disclose whether it only performs read-only operations, what 'basic info' exactly includes, whether it might throw errors on failure, or any side effects. This is a gap for a tool that could potentially connect to an external service.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the primary action ('Test connection'). It does not waste words, though 'get basic info' is underspecified, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 minimal complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but not fully complete. It would be improved by specifying what 'basic info' includes (e.g., latency, version, status) and whether any side effects occur. The tool appears to be a simple health check, so this is acceptable but not outstanding.

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?

With zero parameters, there is no parameter semantics to clarify beyond what the schema already shows (an empty object). The description correctly avoids mentioning nonexistent parameters, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is a 4.

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 a specific verb ('Test') and resource ('connection to Supabase database'), and adds that it returns 'basic info'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings since none other is explicitly a connection test, though 'basic info' is somewhat vague.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, for a no-parameter connection check, the usage context is largely implied: it is a diagnostic tool for verifying connectivity. The lack of any mention of prerequisites or typical scenarios leaves room for improvement.

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