Test Connection

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

Annotations already declare read-only behavior, and the description adds useful context beyond that: the call does not raise on failure and returns a status dict with `ok`, `target`, `auth`, and `error`. It does not discuss credential or permission requirements, but it discloses the key failure-mode 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 three tight sentences, front-loads the purpose, then gives return-shape and usage guidance. Every sentence adds useful information without 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 low-complexity connection test with an output schema and read-only annotation, the description covers the main behavior and return values. The undocumented `domain` parameter leaves a real invocation gap, so it is adequate but 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 single `domain` parameter has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned in the description. The agent cannot tell whether `null` means use default configuration, what domain should be supplied, or how the parameter affects binding.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it tests connectivity and binds to the AD server, distinguishing it as a pre-flight verification tool. It does not explicitly contrast with the similar `health` sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It explicitly says to use this before running other tools to verify configuration and reachability, giving clear usage context. It does not state when not to use it or route the agent to the similar `health` tool.

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