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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description repeats that the plan is non-mutating but adds little behavioral context beyond what the annotations and schema description already provide.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core behavior immediately and avoids unnecessary detail.

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 one-parameter tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the tool's planning role and non-mutating behavior, though sibling routing and explicit usage guidance are left implicit.

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 mentions the three workflow categories, which correspond to the target enum, but the schema already documents the target parameter at 100% coverage with richer semantics for each enum value. With high schema coverage, the description meets the baseline by not adding much beyond the structured 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 states a specific verb and resource: return a next-step plan for connecting a repository, evaluation, or trace source. It clearly identifies the tool as planning-oriented rather than execution-oriented, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as project_inspect or connections_list.

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 purpose implies when the tool is useful: before connecting a repository, evaluation, or trace source. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance and does not mention sibling tools that might handle inspection or connection listing instead.

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