test_connection

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

Annotations already provide a non-destructive, non-idempotent profile. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that it checks database accessibility and returns latency, but it does not mention possible side effects, failure behavior, or authentication requirements. This is acceptable for a simple test tool 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?

Two short sentences with zero filler. The core action and output are front-loaded and every word contributes meaning.

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 one-parameter diagnostic tool, the description covers the action and return value. The main gap is the lack of usage guidance relative to siblings, but the tool's simplicity means the essential call information is present.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the only parameter, connection_id, is described as 'UUID da conexão a testar'. The description adds almost nothing beyond restating that an existing connection is tested, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Testa'), a specific resource ('conexão existente'), and the outcome ('verifica se o banco está acessível e retorna latência'). This clearly distinguishes it from related connection CRUD tools and from test_mcp_server.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like get_connection, list_connections, or test_mcp_server. It implies an existing connection but never states exclusions or the context that should trigger this tool.

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