connection_test

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which matches the 'try' semantics and raises no contradiction. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that the call accepts either a saved connection reference or ad-hoc form settings, but it says nothing about what success/failure looks like, whether `password` is required for one mode, or any side effects (e.g., does it activate the connection?).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the two-mode distinction is right up front. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, but as written nothing is wasted.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and only a read-only hint in annotations, the description should explain the two input paths more concretely (which params pair with which mode) and what the call returns on success or failure. As it stands, key operational details are 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 description coverage is 0% and none of the three parameters are documented in the schema. The description hints that `name` refers to a saved connection and that `profile` corresponds to 'the settings from the form', but `password` is never mentioned and the relationship/mutual exclusivity between `name` and `profile` is left ambiguous.

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?

It conveys the resource (a connection) and the operation (testing it), and distinguishes two input modes: a saved connection by `name` versus form-supplied settings. The verb 'try' is informal and the tool is not differentiated from nearby siblings like `connection_activate`, `connection_sso_sign_in`, or `sas_viya_test`. Purpose is inferable but not sharp.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. An agent cannot tell from the text whether this is a prerequisite step before `connection_activate`, an alternative to `sas_viya_test`, or a purely diagnostic call. The only routing hint is the implicit name-vs-form distinction.

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