connect

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic action. With no annotations, it should mention side effects (e.g., invalid codes, session establishment, authentication requirements), but it only states the core function.

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?

A single, direct sentence with no filler. Information is front-loaded and every word serves a purpose.

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?

The description lacks context for a tool that initiates a session. It does not explain the session lifecycle, error handling, or how it fits with sibling tools, which is crucial for an agent to use it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal value over the schema. It does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond what is already in the schema.

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 action ('Verify' and 'open') and the specific resources ('app.odei.ai pairing code' and 'ODEI Connect session'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'odei_connect_talk' or 'odei_connect_status' by focusing on session initiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks information about prerequisites, sequence (e.g., must be called first), or conditions for use.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The description only states the return value but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, whether it modifies any state, or any other behavioral implications. The verb 'Return' suggests a read operation, but this is not explicitly confirmed.

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 and is concise, but it is too brief to provide sufficient information. It lacks any structure or detail that would help the agent use the tool effectively. Every sentence should earn its place, and this one barely adds value beyond the name.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the 'install plan and reporting contract' contains, how to interpret the return value, or any further context needed for proper use.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not explain any of the parameters. The description omits any mention of 'os' or 'session_token', leaving the agent to infer their meaning from the schema alone, which provides no semantic context.

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 ('Return') and the resource ('ordered local ODEI install plan and reporting contract'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like odei_connect_handshake and odei_connect_status, which have different purposes. However, the term 'ODEI' may be domain-specific and could be more explicit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description does not help the agent decide between this and sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only says 'Record evidence', implying a write operation, but omits critical details like whether the operation is idempotent, whether it requires authentication, or whether it can be called multiple times. The agent lacks insight into side effects or constraints.

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, front-loaded with the essential action. However, for a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this brevity sacrifices crucial detail. While concise, it is insufficiently informative for an agent to use correctly.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and an output schema, the description should compensate with richer context. It fails to mention return values, error conditions, or the expected outcome of the operation. The minimal description leaves significant gaps in the agent's understanding.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The tool description does not explain any parameter—neither the meaning of 'evidence', 'step', 'session_token', 'os', nor 'notes'. The step enum values are listed in the schema but not clarified here, leaving the agent to guess their significance.

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 purpose: recording evidence that a Connect ceremony step has completed. It uses a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('evidence that a Connect ceremony step has completed'), making it distinguishable from sibling tools like handshake, plan, status, and talk.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or the expected sequence of steps. The sibling tools suggest different phases (handshake, plan, status, talk), but the description does not clarify that this tool should be called after completing a step.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior but only states it returns progress. It does not describe side effects, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 with no wasted words. However, it is too brief to be fully effective, lacking context that would justify its length.

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?

Given the tool has two parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'ceremony progress' means, what the output contains, or how to interpret results. The description is incomplete.

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 0%, meaning the description adds zero information about the parameters. It does not explain that session_token is required and os is optional, nor what values are valid. The agent must rely solely on the schema.

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 returns current ceremony progress, using a verb+resource structure. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like odei_connect_handshake or odei_connect_plan, which also relate to ceremony steps.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description implies it is for checking progress, but there is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or context.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a read-like operation ('answer from session state') but does not mention side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or what constitutes 'session state'. This lack of detail leaves significant ambiguity for an AI agent.

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 very brief (one sentence), which aligns with conciseness, but it sacrifices necessary detail. While it is front-loaded with the core purpose, every sentence should earn its place; here, the single sentence does not fully satisfy the tool's informational needs.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, 1 required, no output schema, no annotations), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain return values, how to use the parameters, or provide any context for using this tool in the ODEI Connect workflow.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds no meaning to any of the three parameters (session_token, message, os). For instance, it does not explain that 'session_token' is required, what 'message' represents, or that 'os' has an enum constraint. The description completely fails to compensate for the missing schema annotations.

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 action ('answer from session state') and resource ('ODEI Connect'), with a distinguishing clause ('without invoking a model API'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like odei_connect_handshake or odei_connect_plan, which could also relate to session state.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'without invoking a model API' implicitly suggests a use case (avoiding API calls), but there are no when-not-to-use instructions or references to sibling tools.

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