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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state what happens on failure, whether authentication is attempted, whether this is a read-only check or establishes state, what the return result looks like, or whether it mutates any connection registry state. For a test tool that could have side effects (e.g., adding a connection to a registry), this is a meaningful gap.

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?

Single sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the core purpose. It's minimal but adequate for a simple test utility. Could have added a bit more context without bloating, but as written it is appropriately concise.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the single-sentence description is insufficient. It doesn't explain expected return values (success/failure output), how this differs from health_status or system_status, whether the test is synchronous with a timeout, or how authentication parameters factor into the test. Sibling tools like connect_broker, system_status, and health_status create ambiguity that this description fails to resolve.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including defaults and descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the heavy lifting, though the description doesn't clarify how username/password relate to the port default (web console port vs. broker protocol port), which could cause misconfiguration.

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 'Test connectivity to an ActiveMQ broker' uses a specific verb (test) and resource (connectivity to broker), clearly stating purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish from siblings like system_status or health_status, which may also assess connection health, though those more likely target the broker's operational status rather than connectivity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like system_status, health_status, or connect_broker. The tool appears to be a connectivity check, but the description doesn't clarify whether it establishes a persistent connection, whether credentials are needed for testing, or when users should prefer connect_from_config or connect_broker instead.

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