test_connection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool performs a real SELECT 1 connection test, that it does not expose connection information or data, and that it only returns success/failure. This covers the key behavioral traits, though it omits potential timeout or error behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the result behavior. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what it does and what it returns. It does not mention prerequisites or failure details, but the schema's parameter description already references list_connections, so the overall definition is fairly complete.

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 sole parameter connection_no, including an example from list_connections. The description's reference to '지정한 번호' adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 purpose: to verify actual connectivity to the specified DB connection number via SELECT 1. It also distinguishes itself from data-returning queries by explicitly noting that it only returns success/failure and does not expose connection info or data.

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 use case is implied — use this tool to check connectivity — but the description does not explicitly contrast it with siblings like run_select_query or list_connections, nor does it state when not to use it. An agent can infer the purpose, but explicit routing guidance is absent.

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