test_server_connection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the successful behavior (returns version and hostname) but does not disclose failure behavior (e.g., timeouts, error messages) or authentication requirements. This is a gap but acceptable for a simple test tool.

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 with no wasted words. The main action and output are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description mentions the return values (version and hostname). While it could mention failure conditions, it is generally complete for a connectivity test.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'server'. The tool description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'Server alias' and default behavior). Baseline 3 per rules.

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 verb 'Test connectivity' and the resource 'specific Webmin server', and specifies the output (version and hostname). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are about password, file, cron, and user management.

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 testing connectivity to a specific Webmin server, with an optional server parameter. It is clear when to use it, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. However, no alternative exists among siblings, so it is still clear.

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