connect_signal

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

The description discloses that it 'saves automatically' and errors on missing signal/method, which adds transparency. However, without annotations, it carries the full burden and does not mention side effects, permission requirements, or undo behavior.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. Every sentence adds unique information: the core action, auto-save behavior, and error conditions.

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 6 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but has gaps. It does not explain return values or behavior when connection already exists, but it covers primary constraints.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond the schema (e.g., 'Saves automatically', error conditions), which is helpful but not extensive.

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 action: 'Connect a signal from one node to a method on another node.' This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'disconnect_signal' and other signal-related tools like 'get_node_signals'.

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 its use case through the name and context but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It lacks statements like 'Use this when you want to...' or 'Do not use for...'.

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