connect_to_resolve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action and return value, without explaining what happens on failure, whether the connection is established once, or the effect of the 'force' parameter. This is insufficient for a connection tool.

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 concise sentence, front-loading the core purpose. However, it is too brief to cover necessary details for a connection tool.

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 purpose (connecting to an external application), the description lacks context on prerequisites (Resolve must be running), error handling, and idempotency. The presence of an output schema helps but does not compensate for missing behavioral context.

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%, meaning the 'force' parameter has no description in the schema itself. The tool description does not explain what 'force' does (e.g., force reconnection). This is a critical gap for proper usage.

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 clearly states the tool connects to running Resolve Studio and returns product/project context. The verb 'connect' and resource 'Resolve Studio' with expected output are specific and distinct from sibling tools like grading or rendering tools.

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?

No guidelines on when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites like ensuring Resolve Studio is running, nor does it differentiate from the sibling 'validate_resolve_connection'.

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