get_connector_compatibilityScreen a generator outlet, destination, and cord distance for direct compatibility, adapter needs, verification boundaries, or unsafe paths.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| targetId | Yes | Intended destination | |
| distanceFeet | Yes | Planned cord distance in feet | |
| sourceConnectorId | Yes | Generator receptacle family |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal the tool's verdict taxonomy (four outcome buckets) and the verb 'screen' implies a read-only evaluation with no side effects. However, the semantics of 'verification boundaries' and 'unsafe paths' are never explained, and nothing is said about failure modes, limitations, or the result format beyond the category labels.
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 front-loaded sentence of about 20 words: the verb leads, the three inputs follow, and the four outcome classes close it out. Nothing restates the title, and every phrase encodes distinct information, giving the description a very high information-to-word ratio with zero filler.
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 tool is moderately complex (3 required parameters, 2 enum-constrained) and has no output schema, so the description must convey return semantics. The four outcome terms sketch the result space, but two are ambiguous ('verification boundaries,' 'unsafe paths'), and the description does not say whether a verdict is a single classification or includes supporting detail such as the specific adapter required. The 100% schema coverage lowers parameter-side risk, but the output-side gap remains.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds modest value with natural-language aliases ('generator outlet,' 'destination,' 'cord distance') and by implying the three parameters are evaluated jointly, but it provides no format or domain semantics beyond the schema — such as what the NEMA/CS codes mean or how the constrained distance values (25/50/100) influence the verdict.
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 ('Screen') acting on a concrete resource ('a generator outlet, destination, and cord distance') and enumerates the outcomes: direct compatibility, adapter needs, verification boundaries, or unsafe paths. This clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings — calculate_generator_cord_size answers a cord-sizing question and search_generator_guides is a documentation lookup.
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 clear usage context: invoke this tool when a concrete generator connection must be vetted for whether it works as-is, needs an adapter, requires field verification, or is unsafe. It implies differentiation from the sibling tools by covering a different question, but it never names those alternatives or states explicit when-not conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool addresses a distinct concern: sizing wires, checking connector compatibility, and searching guidance. There is no meaningful overlap between calculating cord size, screening compatibility, or retrieving guides.
All tool names use a consistent snake_case verb_noun structure: calculate_, get_, and search_. The pattern is predictable and clearly indicates each tool's action.
Three tools form a compact, well-scoped set for a focused compatibility and guidance server. Each tool covers a necessary part of the workflow without redundancy.
The set covers sizing, compatibility screening, and access to topical guides, which handles the primary user journey. Minor gaps exist around direct product-level lookup, but the guides tool compensates and the core domain is well covered.