test_datasource_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 states the tool tests a connection but does not explain what 'test' entails (e.g., whether it performs a ping, validates credentials, returns status details, or has side effects like logging). This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for a tool that likely involves network or authentication checks.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, clearly front-loading the purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of testing a datasource connection (which may involve network, authentication, or configuration checks), the description is incomplete. No annotations or output schema exist to clarify behavior or results, and the description lacks details on what the test returns (e.g., success/failure, error messages, latency). This leaves significant gaps for effective tool use.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description mentions 'by UID', which aligns with the 'uid' parameter. However, it does not add meaning beyond this basic mapping, such as explaining what a UID is, its format, or where to obtain it. Given the low schema coverage, the description provides minimal compensation, resulting in an adequate but incomplete parameter understanding.

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 action ('Test the connection') and the target resource ('to a datasource by UID'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'check_datasource_exists' or 'get_datasource_by_uid', which might involve similar datasource operations but different purposes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'check_datasource_exists' or other datasource-related tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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