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 states the action ('test et') but doesn't describe what the test entails (e.g., connectivity check, authentication, version verification), what happens on success/failure, or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 in Turkish that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word contributing to understanding the tool's function.

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) and lack of annotations, the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks details about behavior, output format, or error conditions. For a diagnostic tool, more context about what constitutes a successful test would be helpful, but the core purpose is clear.

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 schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool where the schema fully documents the input structure.

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's purpose as testing a PostGIS database connection with a specific verb ('test et') and resource ('PostGIS veritabanı bağlantısı'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on connection validation rather than spatial operations or data manipulation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential alternative connection-testing tools (though none are listed among siblings).

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., before performing spatial operations), exclusions, or contextual triggers. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone without explicit guidelines.

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