test_connection

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true) already signal a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the exact return payload (version, current database, user, server time), providing useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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, focused sentence that fully delivers the purpose and return details without any wasted words. Structure is ideal for a simple utility tool.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states exactly what the tool does and what it returns. The read-only annotation provides safety reassurance, making this sufficient for an agent to 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?

There are no parameters (0), so the baseline is 4. The description correctly doesn't attempt to explain any parameters, and the empty schema is fully covered by the lack of parameters.

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 tests a GaussDB connection and lists the specific information it returns (database version, current database, current user, server time). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform other database operations.

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 purpose is self-evident and implies usage for verifying connectivity before other operations. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is clear enough given the tool's simple, unique function.

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