connect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the startup requirement but does not explain connection behavior (e.g., whether it is idempotent, what happens on failure, or if prior setup is needed beyond the -rc flag). This is insufficient for a state-changing 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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The essential information is front-loaded, and every word contributes to the purpose or usage prerequisite. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 role in a larger workflow (siblings include start, stop, select_port), the description does not mention that connect is a mandatory first step. An output schema exists, but the description does not indicate what a successful or failed connection returns. The description is adequate for a simple tool but lacks workflow 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 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds a small amount of context by tying the port to the '-rc' listener, which slightly reinforces the schema's meaning but does not fundamentally expand it.

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') and the specific resource ('a StreamXpress instance running in remote-control mode'). This distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'disconnect' and 'scan_ports' and gives a precise purpose without ambiguity.

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 a critical prerequisite (starting StreamXpress with '-rc <port>'), which is essential context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives, but the intent is clear from the tool name and sibling set.

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