provider_test

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description contributes real behavioral context by naming what the test actually performs (SSL handshake, hostname verification), but says nothing about outbound-network requirements, expected latency/timeout behavior, or whether a failed test raises an error versus returning a failure payload — meaningful for a probing 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 first line 'Test a connection' is immediately restated by the second line, and the third line repeats the endpoint path that already appears verbatim in the annotations title. The SSL/hostnameVerification detail earns its place, but roughly half the text is duplication and the useful content is not front-loaded ahead of the redundant first line.

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?

With full schema coverage and annotations present, the input side is well covered. The critical omission is the result side: there is no output schema and the description never says what a test returns (boolean, structured diagnostic, thrown error on TLS failure), which is the single most important thing an agent needs to interpret a connection 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: host, port, secure, timeout, proxyConnection, preConfiguredProxy, additionalCAIssuers and hostnameVerificationAlgorithm are all documented in the schema, including the mutual exclusion between proxyConnection and preConfiguredProxy. The description only echoes the TLS aspects (SSL handshake, hostname verification) without adding syntax, defaults, or constraints, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource (test a connection) and adds scope that narrows it: SSL handshake and hostname verification, i.e. a raw host/port reachability + TLS test rather than an application-protocol test. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling provider_test_ldap, which is the nearest confusable tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g. provider_test_ldap for directory endpoints, or the various create/update cloud-account tools where a connectivity pre-check would be useful), no stated prerequisites (network egress from the appliance, credentials for the proxy), and no exclusions. Usage has to be inferred entirely from the parameter names.

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