woo_test_connection

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

The description discloses that the operation is read-only, which is a key behavioral trait beyond the schema. However, it does not describe the return value, error behavior, or any authentication prerequisites. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and for a simple probe tool it partially suffices but leaves 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 extremely concise: one sentence for the core purpose and a one-line parameter mapping. All information is front-loaded and essential, with no wasted words 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?

For a simple read-only test tool, the description covers the purpose and the one parameter adequately. However, it omits any description of return values (e.g., success/failure, latency) and prerequisites (e.g., configured API credentials). It also does not explicitly differentiate from sibling test tools, though the name does. Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, more detail would be helpful.

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 description explicitly explains the only parameter 'site' by enumerating 'retail (main store)' and 'dealer (dealer portal)', which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, though it does not explicitly state that these are the only valid values.

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 verb 'Probe', the resource 'WooCommerce store's API connection', and explicitly marks it as read-only. It also names the site choices (retail vs dealer), making the tool's specific function unambiguous and easily distinguishable from sibling connection testers like rsr_test_connection or fastbound_test_connection.

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 a hint about when to use the tool by specifying the site options, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over other connection testers or when not to use it. The name and WooCommerce mention imply the context, but there is no direct alternation guidance.

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