rsr_test_connection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is read-only and probes connection and configuration, which gives a basic behavioral understanding. However, it lacks detail on what constitutes a successful probe, error messages, or whether it makes any outbound network requests (which is implied by 'probe').

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Probe') and resource. Every word adds value, with no unnecessary fluff. It is highly concise.

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), the description is largely complete. It states the tool probes connection and configuration and is read-only. A minor gap is the absence of any indication of the output or return value, but for a connection test tool, this is acceptable.

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 input schema coverage is 100% (trivially). According to guidelines, 0 params warrants a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information because none are needed. The purpose description suffices.

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: 'Probe the RSR FTPS connection + configuration (read-only).' It uses a specific verb ('probe') and resource ('RSR FTPS connection + configuration'), and explicitly notes it is read-only, distinguishing it from sibling tools like `rsr_sync_catalog`.

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 implies usage for testing the RSR FTPS connection, and the read-only annotation suggests safe invocation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like `fastbound_test_connection` or `woo_test_connection`, nor does it provide any when-not-to-use conditions.

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