check_connection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return value (connection status, system info, or error details), implying a read-only, non-destructive action. However, it does not explicitly mention side effects, potential risks, or network dependencies beyond the system info. For a simple test tool this is adequate but not enriched.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the return type. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail the return structure further. The purpose and outcome are both covered. The only missing element is an explicit note on when to invoke this tool (e.g., before other operations), but for a zero-parameter health check, the description is minimally sufficient.

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, so parameter semantics are trivial. The schema coverage is 100% (empty schema), and the description correctly omits parameter details. Per the baseline, a zero-parameter tool earns a 4.

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 a specific verb ('Test') and a specific resource ('connection to the BW system'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are all search or retrieval operations, by its connection-checking purpose. No ambiguity about what it does.

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 as a connectivity probe ('Test the connection'), but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. Since no sibling tool serves a similar purpose, the context is clear, but explicit guidance is absent. This is a minor gap.

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