connect

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

With no annotations, the description only states the tool verifies and opens a session, lacking details on side effects, success/failure behavior, or security implications. It provides basic behavior but not enough depth.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action.

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 about the ODEI Connect session, that this tool is a prerequisite for other tools, and what the user or agent needs to do to obtain a pairing code. It is incomplete for an agent to understand the full 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline.

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 verifies a pairing code and opens a session, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'odei_connect_plan' and 'odei_connect_talk' which have different purposes.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing to be logged into app.odei.ai, or that this should be called before other odei_connect 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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it 'returns' data, implying a read operation. No side effects, auth needs, or rate limits are disclosed.

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 concise sentence, but lacks any structure like examples or additional context. It is efficient though minimal.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format, the meaning of 'ordered local', or how the 'os' parameter influences the result.

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%, so parameters (os, session_token) are undocumented in schema. The description adds no meaning to these parameters, such as how 'os' affects the plan or where to get session_token.

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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'ordered local ODEI install plan and reporting contract', distinguishing it from siblings like 'odei_connect_handshake' or 'odei_connect_status'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as prerequisites or contexts like initial setup vs. reporting. The agent gets no hints for decision-making.

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 disclose behavioral traits. It only states the purpose, lacking details on side effects, idempotency, or authentication needs (despite session_token param).

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, concise but overly sparse. It could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 5 parameters (3 required with enums), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the ceremony concept, required evidence format, or parameter roles.

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 mention any parameters; schema coverage is 0%. With 5 parameters (3 required, 2 enums), the description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 verb 'Record evidence' and the resource 'that a Connect ceremony step has completed'. It distinguishes from siblings like handshake, plan, status, talk, which involve other actions.

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 implies use after a step completes but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives. Sibling tools cover different ceremony phases, but no guidance is given.

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 carries full burden. It only states 'return' with no mention of side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or behavioral traits. Minimal disclosure.

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?

Single sentence with no waste, but under-specifies critical information. Conciseness is achieved at the expense of completeness.

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?

Despite simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description does not explain what 'ceremony progress' means, how the os parameter affects behavior, or the return format. Incomplete for reliable 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no parameter details. The os and session_token parameters are unexplained, leaving the agent without semantic guidance.

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 ODEI Connect ceremony progress, specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like handshake or plan by implying a read-only status check, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as odei_connect_plan or wm_recall. The description lacks context about prerequisites 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?

Absent annotations, the description conveys key behavioral traits: it reads from session state without invoking an API. However, it does not specify what happens on invalid session_token or whether the tool modifies state.

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, well-structured sentence that communicates the core purpose. However, it sacrifices parameter details, which might be necessary for completeness.

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 3 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits parameter roles, output format, and potential side effects, leaving the agent to guess.

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 adds no meaning to the three parameters (os, message, session_token). With 0% schema description coverage, this is a critical gap—the agent has no guidance on what each parameter does.

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 answers from session state without invoking a model API, distinguishing it from API-calling tools. However, it could be more explicit about the specific resource ('ODEI Connect 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 implies usage when a model API call is undesired, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like odei_connect_plan or wm_recall.

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 attempts to disclose behavior: it's a read operation using substring and recency matching, and notes it's v1 with no semantic search. However, it omits safety profile, rate limits, or any side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no fluff. Every clause adds value.

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 read tool with 3 params and no output schema, the description covers the basic functionality and algorithm. However, it lacks details on output format, pagination, error handling, or authentication needs (session token not explained). Adequate but could be more thorough.

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 67% with two parameters described. The description text adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The query description is indirectly explained by the overall algorithm, but the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 reads facts from ODEI-hosted operator memory, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings like wm_remember by mentioning the matching mechanism (substring + recency) and explicitly noting it's a read operation.

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 hints at limitations (v1, no semantic search) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like wm_remember or when to use semantic search. No direct mention of when-not to use it.

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 provided, so description carries burden. It explains the write action and server-side location, but does not disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, overwrite rules, rate limits, or required authentication.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. First sentence states action and effect; second clarifies scope. Efficient and focused.

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?

Simple tool; description covers main purpose and scope. No output schema, but return value is not critical here. Could mention session token dependency from handshake, but not essential.

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 67% (2 of 3 params described). Description does not add semantic detail beyond 'write one fact'—baseline 3 is appropriate as schema carries most burden.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('write') and resource ('operator memory in ODEI'), clearly differentiating from sibling 'wm_recall' (recall) and contrasting with local world-model capsule.

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?

States when to use (writing to ODEI-hosed memory) and provides context (server-side, paired operator), but does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, though sibling list implies them.

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