test_connection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds a key behavioral detail: 'sem envio' (no send/request made), which conveys that the tool does not perform any external network call. This clarifies the read-only nature beyond the annotations.

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, short sentence that conveys purpose and a key behavioral trait. Every word earns its place; no fluff 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the core purpose and read-only nature. The only minor gap is that it doesn't specify what the test result means (e.g., success/failure), but given the tool's simplicity and annotations, it is adequate.

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 0%, meaning the schema only gives the parameter name and format constraints. The description references 'domain cadastrado' (registered domain), implying the 'domain' parameter must be a previously registered domain, adding context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't provide detailed semantics like expected format or examples, so it only partially compensates.

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 states a clear verb ('test'), resource ('authentication and domain root'), and explicitly states it does not send anything ('sem envio'), distinguishing it from other actions. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the read-only, no-send nature is clear.

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 this is a diagnostic/pre-flight check (testing authentication and domain root), and the 'sem envio' clause suggests it is safe to call. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_sites) or when not to use it, leaving some inference required.

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