testar_conexao

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool performs a real API call ('chamada real') and is low-cost ('baixo custo'). However, it does not explicitly state whether the call has side effects or how results are returned, though the nature of an authentication test implies a read-only check. This is useful but not fully transparent.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and then provides usage guidance with an alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 (no params, no output schema), the description is nearly complete: it tells what it does, when to use it, and how it differs from the sibling. The only gap is the lack of explicit return-value or success/failure behavior, which the agent might need to know since there is no output schema to clarify it.

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 the schema already covers everything (100% coverage vacuously). The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not detract from that.

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: to test whether credentials actually authenticate against the Sienge API via a real, low-cost call. It uses a specific verb ('Testa') and resource ('credenciais contra a API do Sienge'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'verificar_autenticacao' by noting that this one makes a real API call.

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 explicitly provides use cases: 'Use para diagnosticar falha de conexão ou credencial' (use to diagnose connection or credential failure). It also gives a clear alternative: 'para apenas ver qual mecanismo está configurado, sem chamar a API, use verificar_autenticacao'. This meets the highest standard of when/when-not guidance.

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