test_connection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does state that the tool returns 'success or error message,' which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-mutating or side-effect free, which is important for an agent to know when deciding whether to invoke it.

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 consists of exactly two short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action and target, the second clarifies the output. It is front-loaded and free of any redundant or filler content.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is mostly adequate but leaves some gaps. The return value is described vaguely as 'success or error message' without specifying the exact structure, and the lack of side effects is not explicitly confirmed, which an agent may need to know for safe invocation.

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 input schema is empty, so there are zero parameters to document. Per the calibration rule, a description for a tool with no parameters receives a baseline of 4 because there is no semantic gap to compensate for.

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 uses a specific verb ('Test') and a clear resource ('the PostgreSQL database connection'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It is naturally distinct from sibling tools like list_entities or generate_sql, which operate on entities and SQL rather than the connection itself.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context that would trigger its use. An agent is left to infer that it should be used for connectivity checks, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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