b24_test_connection

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by revealing the internal call to 'profile' and the return structure, including both success and error responses. This contextualizes the behavior beyond 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 concise, structured in three clear parts: purpose, usage hint, and return format. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy, achieving high efficiency.

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 and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and return format adequately. It could mention that calling it repeatedly is safe (implied by idempotentHint), but overall it is nearly comprehensive.

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% with both parameters having clear descriptions. The description does not add further meaning to the parameters beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate for any gaps.

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 tool's purpose: 'Verify the webhook works and report the acting user and portal.' It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like b24_user_current or b24_user_get, which focus on user info but not connection verification.

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 explicitly says 'Use this first when diagnosing auth/permission problems,' providing clear context for when to use. While it doesn't list alternatives or when not to use, the guidance is sufficient and appropriate for a diagnostic tool.

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