test_data_source

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits. The agent cannot infer whether this tool makes network calls, modifies state, or requires authentication. The description carries the full burden but adds no value beyond the name.

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 extremely concise (three words). While appropriate for a trivial action, it lacks any structural elements like front-loading key info. It is not verbose but could be slightly more descriptive without adding unnecessary length.

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 params, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. However, it fails to provide context about what 'testing' involves or its relationship to sibling tools. A more complete description would mention the expected result or side effects.

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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the description needs no additional parameter information. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description adequately conveys that no inputs are needed.

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 'Test the connection' combined with the tool name 'test_data_source' clearly indicates the tool's purpose: to test a data source connection. It is specific enough to distinguish from other operations like creating or listing data sources.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. Among siblings like 'list_data_sources' or 'get_data_source', there is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or situations where testing is appropriate.

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