test_connection

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the burden. It conveys that the tool tests connectivity, implying a read-only check, but does not disclose what happens on failure (e.g., error messages, side effects). It provides minimal but useful context, so a 3 is appropriate as it adds some transparency beyond the literal name.

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, clear sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks guidance on interpretation of results (e.g., what does a successful test return?). It is complete enough for a basic tool but could be improved with output context.

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 schema already describes the parameter as 'The ID or name of the database connection to test' (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to add much. The description doesn't clarify the expected format (ID vs name) beyond the schema, so it stays at baseline 3.

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 clear verb ('Test') and specific resource ('connectivity to a database connection'), making the purpose clear. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_connection_info, but the action is distinct enough.

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 or when not to use it. For example, it doesn't say 'Use this tool to check if a connection is alive before running queries' or contrast with get_connection_info.

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