Test HANA connection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the literal statement 'Test connection', such as what the test entails, potential side effects, or what a successful/failed result looks like. It is consistent with annotations but contributes no extra transparency.

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 conveys the essential purpose without any redundant or extraneous text. It is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is very simple (no parameters, no output schema, annotations are present), so the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain what the result of the test will be (e.g., success/failure, connection details) or how this differs from similar diagnostic tools like hana_health_check, leaving some context incomplete.

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 has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and since there are no parameters to document, the description has no additional parameter semantics to provide.

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 'Test connection to HANA database' clearly states the tool's verb ('test') and resource ('connection to HANA database'). It is specific enough to convey its purpose, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from similar sibling tools like hana_health_check or hana_get_session_info.

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 alternatives. It does not mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when a connection test is appropriate.

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