afg2125_connect

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

Annotations provide little positive info (all false). The description adds the behavioral detail of 'bounded PnP-filtered auto-detection when omitted', which is useful. But it does not disclose side effects, timeout behavior, or error handling, so the added value is moderate.

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 states the primary action and a key behavioral detail efficiently.

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 connect tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (connect, auto-detection optional). It omits details like timeout semantics and prerequisites, but the output schema and parameter defaults partially fill these gaps. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, so the description must compensate. It partially explains the resource parameter (optional, auto-detection when omitted), but provides no explanation for timeout_ms. With only two parameters, this leaves half the parameters underspecified.

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 explicitly states 'Connect to an AFG-2125', giving a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling connect tools by naming the target instrument, and the auto-detection phrase adds further clarity. This is a clear, unambiguous purpose.

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 connection to an AFG-2125 is needed, and clarifies that the resource parameter is optional via auto-detection. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative connect tools for other instruments. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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