couple_servers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'initial resonance strength' and 'ports resonance-bridge', which hint at configuration or setup behavior, but doesn't explain what 'coupling' entails (e.g., whether it's a persistent connection, requires authentication, has side effects, or involves rate limits). The description is too vague to provide meaningful behavioral context beyond the basic action implied.

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 sentence that is relatively concise, but it includes ambiguous terms like 'ports resonance-bridge' without clarification, which reduces its effectiveness. It's front-loaded with the main action but could be more structured to improve clarity. The sentence earns its place by stating the purpose, albeit vaguely.

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 complexity implied by terms like 'coupling' and 'resonance', and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what 'coupling' achieves, or how it interacts with sibling tools. For a tool with no structured data to rely on, the description should provide more context about behavior and outcomes.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is acceptable since there are none. It mentions 'initial resonance strength', which could be interpreted as an implied parameter, but this doesn't detract from the baseline score given the schema's completeness.

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 'Couple two MCP servers with an initial resonance strength (ports resonance-bridge)' states a vague purpose. While it mentions coupling servers and resonance strength, it doesn't specify what 'coupling' means operationally or what the outcome is. The mention of 'ports resonance-bridge' adds technical jargon without clear meaning. This is better than a tautology but lacks specificity about the verb and resource involved.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. With sibling tools like 'balance_load', 'resonate', and 'visualize_coupling_graph' that might relate to server interactions, there's no indication of alternatives or exclusions. The description implies a coupling action but doesn't specify prerequisites or contexts for use.

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