test_connection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the return includes connection status and user information, which gives partial insight. However, it does not mention any side effects, required permissions, or whether the test is safe beyond the implied read-only nature.

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 with two clear sentences, followed by a bullet-style 'Returns' line. Every sentence adds value and the structure is front-loaded.

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 (zero parameters, output schema present), the description provides sufficient context: purpose, usage direction, and return value. It is complete for the agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so the input schema covers 100%. According to guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information because none exist.

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 verb 'Test' and the resource 'connection to Tableau Server', specifying the action and scope. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on views, datasources, projects, etc.

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 to use this tool for verifying connectivity and authentication, giving a clear when-to-use. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the sibling list implies other tools serve different purposes.

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