测试服务器连接

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description is not carrying the safety burden alone. It adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: the first SFTP connection may persist a TOFU host key, which is exactly the side effect that explains readOnlyHint=false and is not derivable from any structured field.

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?

Two tight clauses: the purpose first, the state-changing caveat second. No filler, no repetition of the name or title, and nothing that could be dropped without loss.

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?

An output schema exists, so return/failure reporting need not be described, and the single optional parameter is fully covered by the schema. Purpose plus the persistence side effect are sufficient for correct invocation; a note on what a failed verification means (error vs status field) would round it out.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'server' parameter is already documented in-schema as an optional alias defaulting to the default server. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource pair ('验证服务器连接和认证'), so an agent immediately knows this validates connectivity and credentials rather than listing, reading, or modifying anything. It is not confusable with any sibling (list_servers, list_dir, upload_file, etc.), though it never explicitly names an alternative. Clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this should be run before attempting file operations against an uncertain server. There is no explicit 'use when / do not use when', no mention of when a re-test is warranted (e.g., after an auth or network error), and no alternative check documented. The TOFU caveat is the only guidance-adjacent content.

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