test_connection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: whether the test opens an actual socket/authenticates, whether it is read-only and side-effect free, what a failure looks like, or whether results are cached. Only the bare action is stated.

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 short sentence with no filler and the verb front-loaded. It is efficient, though it may be over-concise given everything it leaves unsaid.

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 one-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the minimum. It fails to say what the test returns (success/failure, latency, error detail) or what happens on a failed connection, which an agent would want before invoking.

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 100% for the single parameter, and the description adds no syntax, format, or example beyond the schema's 'Nome da conexão a ser testada'. Baseline 3 applies when the schema already does the work.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('testa uma conexão ... com o banco MySQL'), which is unambiguous about what the tool does. The word 'específica' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling test_all_connections, though that sibling is never named.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'específica' hints at testing one connection rather than all, which is the natural contrast with test_all_connections. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over that sibling, nor any prerequisite (e.g. the connection must already exist / be configured).

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