woo_test_connection

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

The description explicitly states 'read-only', which informs the agent of the tool's safety profile. With no annotations, this is a key disclosure. No further behavioral details are needed for such a simple tool.

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, concise sentence that fully explains the tool's purpose without waste. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema test tool, the description is complete. It states the action (probe), the target (WooCommerce API connection), and the behavioral trait (read-only). No additional context is needed.

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?

Since there are no parameters (0 required, schema coverage 100%), the description adds no parameter info but does not need to. Baseline 4 is appropriate as the schema already covers everything.

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 it probes the WooCommerce API connection and is read-only. It uses a specific verb 'probe' and identifies the resource (WooCommerce API connection). However, it does not differentiate from sibling test_connection tools.

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 WooCommerce connectivity but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fastbound_test_connection' or 'rsr_test_connection'. No exclusions or contexts are provided.

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