sigma_test_connection

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as network requests, failure modes, or side effects. It adds no detail beyond the purpose.

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 one-sentence description is concise and front-loaded, containing no filler. It earns its place but is too sparse to provide substantive guidance.

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?

While a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema might require less description, the current text is insufficiently contextual: it does not clarify what 'connectivity' means, when to use it, or what success/failure looks like. Given sibling complexity, this is incomplete.

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 has one required string parameter `connection_id` with no description. The description does not explain the parameter's meaning, format, or how to obtain a valid ID, despite the 0% schema-description coverage.

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 uses the verb 'Test' with the resource 'connection', clearly indicating a connectivity check. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sigma_list_connections and sigma_get_connection, though it does not specify what testing entails.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sigma_sync_connection or sigma_get_connection. The description lacks context for deciding between testing and other connection operations.

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