test_destination

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 does disclose output behavior ('Returns compact confirmation by default — set verbose=true for full response'), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or if running tests has any side effects, and it does not describe what the tests actually do beyond 'verify connectivity and configuration.' This partial transparency meets the minimum but leaves gaps.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and then provides the key behavioral detail about output verbosity. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 tool with only two parameters and simple semantics, the description provides adequate context: what it does, the default output behavior, and how to change it. It does not have an output schema, so the description of 'compact confirmation' vs 'full response' partially compensates. However, it could be more complete by hinting at what the confirmation includes or indicating that the tool is safe to run (read-only). Still, the core information needed to invoke and interpret is present.

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 already includes descriptions for both parameters ('destination_id' and 'verbose') with 100% coverage. The description adds no new meaning; the mention of 'verbose=true' simply restates the schema's parameter description. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Run setup tests for a destination to verify connectivity and configuration.' This is a specific verb ('run setup tests') with a resource ('destination') and a clear goal. It also distinguishes from siblings by focusing on testing/verification, which none of the other connection-related tools explicitly do.

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 implies usage context—during destination setup to verify connectivity—but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or provide any exclusions. It lacks guidance such as 'use after creating or updating a destination' or 'use instead of get_connection_details for verification purposes.' The context is clear but not explicit enough to warrant a higher score.

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