Connect MSSQL

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'tests' the connection, implying a non-destructive diagnostic action, but it does not disclose what happens on success/failure, whether authentication is required, or whether any side effects occur. The description offers minimal insight beyond the basic action.

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 concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose. It contains zero waste and is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and a simple function.

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 parameters, no output schema) and the presence of sibling tools, the description is minimally viable but lacks context about what 'test' entails (e.g., output, failure behavior, dependency on environment settings). It is complete enough for a basic understanding but does not fully cover the operational context.

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 is empty with zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the rubric, 0 parameters warrants a baseline score of 4. The description does not introduce any parameter-related confusion.

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 a specific verb ('test eder' - tests) and resource ('MSSQL bağlantısı' - MSSQL connection), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like discover_schema and run_sql_safe. It conveys the tool's sole purpose without ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (discover_schema, run_sql_safe). It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. The usage context is only implied by the name, not explicitly stated.

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