Test Database Connection

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

The description mentions the return value (success and server version), which is informative. Combined with annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), it gives a clear picture of the tool's behavior, though it doesn't explicitly state the lack of side effects beyond the annotation coverage.

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 sentence that is concise and directly states the action and expected output. No unnecessary details or fluff.

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 test tool, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and what it returns. It does not require extensive elaboration, and the provided information is complete in context.

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 does not add any details about the parameters beyond what the input schema already provides. Since the schema has clear descriptions for both workspaceId and connectionId, the description adds no extra meaning, aligning with the baseline for high schema 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 tool's function: testing connectivity to a saved database connection. The action is specific and unambiguous, and the tool name reinforces the purpose.

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 does not explicitly contrast this tool with related alternatives (e.g., create_connection, list_connections). While the name implies its role, there is no guidance on when to prefer it over other connection-related tools.

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