test-connection

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 mentions verifying authentication, which hints at a read-only, non-destructive operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, what happens on failure (e.g., error messages), or if it has rate limits. The description is minimal and leaves key operational details unspecified.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any redundant or unnecessary information. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters, making it easy to understand quickly.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or response format, which could be helpful for an agent. For a connection-testing tool, more context on what 'verify authentication' entails would improve completeness.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details beyond the schema, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description does not need to compensate for any gaps in parameter documentation.

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 specific action ('Test the connection') and target resource ('Mural API'), with the additional purpose of verifying authentication. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'clear-auth' or 'get-rate-limit-status' by focusing on connectivity testing rather than authentication management or status checking.

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 implies usage context—when you need to verify API connectivity and authentication—but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'debug-api-response' for troubleshooting or 'get-rate-limit-status' for performance checks. It provides clear intent but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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