dpo2012b_connect

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

Annotations already declare the operation as non-read-only and non-idempotent, aligning with the 'connect' action. The description adds the auto-detection behavior as extra context, but it does not disclose connection lifecycle effects, such as how this affects subsequent dpo2012b_* commands or what happens on failure.

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 that conveys the primary purpose and the key nuance about resource auto-detection. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 two-parameter connect tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the core purpose and one behavioral detail. It lacks broader context about the connection lifecycle — for example, that a connection is a prerequisite for other dpo2012b_* tools or how an existing connection is handled — but it remains minimally viable given the low complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It clarifies the 'resource' parameter by noting auto-detection when omitted, but it provides no guidance on 'timeout_ms' — its units, accepted range, or behavior — leaving a significant semantic gap for one of the two parameters.

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 and resource ('Connect to a DPO2012B'), which clearly states what the tool does. The addition 'auto-detect it when resource is omitted' further clarifies the tool's scope, and the device name in the tool name distinguishes it from sibling connect tools for other instruments.

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 via the auto-detect clause, indicating the resource parameter can be omitted. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other connect tools or list_visa_instruments), nor does it mention prerequisites or excluded scenarios.

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