check_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. It explicitly states that the tool tests authentication and endpoint reachability, which are the key behavioral traits. Since it is a read-only verification, no mutation implications are required. The description is transparent about what is being checked and for what purpose.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Verify that the Sumo Logic API connection is working') and then provides supporting details. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does and when to use it. There is no missing information that would hinder correct invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms this. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description correctly does not invent or explain parameters. It adds no unnecessary parameter information, which is appropriate.

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 ('Verify') and resource ('Sumo Logic API connection'), clearly stating it tests authentication and endpoint reachability. It is distinct from sibling tools, which focus on monitors, logs, dashboards, etc., so there is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'Use this to confirm credentials are configured correctly.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but for a connection-check utility, this is adequate. The absence of a need for an alternative is not a significant gap.

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