im_test_connection

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool tests a connection and returns two specific pieces of information, implying a non-destructive read operation. While it doesn't explicitly state safety, the behavior is clear enough.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loades the purpose and immediately specifies the return values. Every part contributes meaning.

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 (no parameters, no output schema, straightforward purpose), the description provides all necessary context to understand and use the tool correctly. It covers what it does and what it returns.

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 zero parameters, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which is already complete. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, but the description perfectly handles this case.

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 uses a specific verb ('Test') and resource ('MS SQL connection to the IntelliMatch database'), and clearly states the output (server version and database name). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are all about data operations or reporting.

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 clearly implies the tool is for verifying connectivity, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. However, since no other sibling tool provides this function, the guidance is sufficient.

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