ping_database

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 adds the context 'configured', indicating it uses default settings, but it does not disclose what happens on failure (e.g., error vs. return value) or whether any state is changed. For a simple ping-style tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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, tightly worded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No fluff or repetition, and it is front-loaded with the key action.

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?

For a simple tool with an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient, but it leaves the optional parameter unexplained and does not clearly distinguish from 'health'. A short mention of the parameter or a comparison to 'health' would make it complete.

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 shows a single optional 'database' parameter with no description, and the tool description does not mention this parameter at all. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining what values the parameter accepts or how it affects behavior.

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 action ('Verify') and resource ('configured database connection'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'health', which might also verify connectivity, so it falls short of a 5.

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 intended use is implied by the purpose: use it to check that the database connection works. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over the 'health' tool or any exclusions/alternatives, leaving room for ambiguity.

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