hana_test_connection

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses that the tool never returns passwords or sensitive data, and that it returns server information. It could be more explicit about being read-only and safe to call multiple times, but it covers key behavioral traits.

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?

Three sentences, each adding value: purpose, details of verification, and safety guarantee. Front-loaded with the main action, no redundant or filler text.

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?

For a simple connection test with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what information it returns (version, user, schema), including a safety guarantee. It is complete enough for an agent to understand its function.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. According to guidelines, this earns a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter info, and it does not attempt to mislead.

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 it tests the connection to SAP HANA Cloud and returns server information including version, connected user, and current schema. This distinguishes it from sibling HANA tools like hana_execute_query or hana_describe_table, which serve different purposes.

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 for verifying connectivity and credentials, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like hana_get_system_info. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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