database_test_connection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'Test' without explaining what the test does (e.g., ping, verify credentials), whether it has side effects, or what the return/error behavior looks like.

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 concise sentence of eight words with no redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and a simple function.

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?

Despite its simplicity, the description lacks essential context for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. It does not state what a successful test returns (e.g., a boolean, a message) or what failure conditions look like, leaving the agent uncertain about how to interpret the result.

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 and the schema is empty (100% coverage), so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. The baseline score of 4 applies since no parameter documentation is 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 clearly states the action ('Test') and the resource ('the active database connection'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools beyond the verb, so it lacks the specificity of a top-tier purpose statement.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like database_connect or database_execute_sql. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., 'use after connecting') or situations where this test is appropriate.

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