mp_recoverConnection

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits. It explains side effects in launch mode (app exit and relaunch, loss of current page stack) versus connect mode (only WS reconnection). It also clarifies the meaning of recovery results, warnings about infinite retries, and the conditions under which health may remain degraded.

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 fairly long but well-structured with clear sections. Each sentence contributes meaningful information, and the structure aids readability. It could be slightly more concise, but the complexity of the tool justifies the length.

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?

The description is highly complete given the tool's complexity. It explains the return JSON structure, the meaning of recovery flags, and provides guidance on handling failures. It also addresses edge cases and potential pitfalls, leaving little ambiguity for the agent.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema. It explains the default value and purpose of the reconnect parameter, and provides detailed explanations for fields in the connection object, including warnings about the port parameter. This is especially valuable given the nested object and the need to clarify parameter 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's purpose: to repair an existing but degraded or failed connection by following a standard sequence of steps. It explicitly lists the actions (rebuild automator session, remount log listener, restore project context) and mentions that it returns a before/after comparison. This differentiates it from sibling tools like mp_ensureConnection and mp_diagnoseConnection.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool (only when mp_healthCheck shows needsRecovery=true) and when not to use it (for first-time connections, or when needsRecovery=false). It also distinguishes between this tool and others like mp_ensureConnection and the ensure(reconnect=true) variant, clearly specifying the appropriate contexts.

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