test_connection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the operation as testing connection status, which implies a read-only health check, but it does not describe failure behavior, return semantics, or whether any side effects occur. For a simple, zero-parameter test operation this is adequate but minimal.

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 short sentence in Chinese that fully communicates the tool's purpose with no redundant words or filler. It is maximally concise and front-loaded.

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 health-check tool with an output schema, the description provides enough information for an agent to select the tool. It could benefit from a note about what the output looks like on success/failure, but the output schema likely covers return structure, and the tool's simplicity keeps the description adequate.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter information in the description, but none is needed because the input schema is empty. The description cannot add meaning beyond the schema where no parameters exist.

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 '测试数据库连接状态' states a specific action (test) on a clear resource (database connection status). It is distinct from sibling tools that execute SQL files, run queries, list tables, or manage schema, so an agent can immediately understand this is a connectivity health check.

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 state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the name and description clearly imply it is for checking database connectivity. Since none of the sibling tools serve this purpose, the usage context is reasonably inferable, though no explicit guidance is provided.

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