test_mcp_server

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by specifying that the tool performs a real protocol handshake, lists tools, and returns protocol version, latency, and error class. It is consistent with openWorldHint=true and does not contradict the annotations, though it could mention potential side effects or auth requirements more explicitly.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences: action/resource, return values, and use cases. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the key return fields: protocol era/version, latency, available tools, and error class. It is complete enough for selecting and invoking the tool, though it leaves minor room for more precision about response structure and latency units.

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 only parameter, mcp_server_id, is already fully documented in the input schema with a clear UUID description and 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no extra semantic detail about this parameter, which is acceptable under the baseline rule for high coverage.

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 action ('Testa a conectividade'), the target resource ('um MCP server externo'), and the distinctive mechanism ('handshake REAL do protocolo', 'listagem de tools'). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling test_connection, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use para diagnosticar problemas de conexão, auth, endpoint offline ou incompatibilidade de protocolo.' However, it does not state when not to use it or point to an alternative tool such as test_connection.

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