Get Connection Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds value by specifying what the tool returns (host, database, latency, error details if unreachable), which is behavioral detail beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations, and the described behavior is consistent with read-only operation.

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 three concise sentences with zero fluff. It front-loads the primary purpose, then explains return details, and concludes with a usage recommendation. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is clear and scannable.

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 read-only diagnostic tool with two optional params and an output schema, the description covers purpose, return behavior, and usage context. It does not need to detail the output schema since that exists separately. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% — both parameters (profile and magentoRoot) are already described in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline for high coverage is 3. No additional information is needed, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Tests') and resource ('database connectivity') plus the exact outputs (host, database, latency, error details). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_indexer_status or list_connection_profiles, which have different targets. The wording is precise and unambiguous.

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 gives an explicit usage context: 'Use before running queries on an unfamiliar environment.' This tells an agent when to call the tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Still, the context is clear and non-misleading, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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