connect_info

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool is about 'how to connect', indicating it provides guidance, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, that it returns a guide, or describe any side effects. This is a gap but not a contradiction or misdirection.

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 quickly states the core purpose. The phrase 'for premium 3D web components, templates & scenes' is marketing-oriented and adds little for tool invocation, but overall it remains compact and readable.

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 the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no annotations, no output schema) and distinct sibling set, the description is largely complete for selecting and invoking the tool. Minor ambiguity remains about the exact return value, but it does not block correct usage.

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 input schema has no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not need to add parameter-level meaning; there is nothing to document beyond the tool's overall purpose.

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 ('connect') and names a concrete resource (the hosted AETumi MCP) and target clients (Claude Code, Cursor, Codex). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, which all focus on recipes, templates, or audit tasks rather than connectivity/setup.

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 a clear usage context: use this tool when you need instructions for connecting the hosted AETumi MCP to supported clients. It names the specific clients and server protocol (streamable-HTTP), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives; its uniqueness among the siblings makes this less critical.

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