test_account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It merely states 'Test connectivity' without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, requires the account to exist, or what happens on failure. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 sentence that is concise and clear. It contains no unnecessary words and is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is almost complete. It states the core purpose, but could mention that the tool does not modify any data. Nevertheless, it adequately serves its purpose.

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 single parameter 'alias' is described in the schema as 'Account alias to test'. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score is 3, and no extra value is provided.

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 connectivity to a CalDAV account'. It uses a specific verb ('test') and resource ('connectivity to a CalDAV account'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_account, remove_account, etc.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description implies the tool is for testing connectivity, but does not specify when to use it (e.g., after adding an account) or when not to use it. There are no alternative testing tools among siblings, so the context is adequate but minimal.

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