signal-connect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the operation (creates connection) and persistence (saved to scene file). However, it omits details about idempotency, error handling if connection already exists, and whether special permissions are needed.

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 cover the purpose and prerequisite. The opening phrase '[compact alias of connect_signal]' is slightly meta and could be omitted, but overall the description is efficient and front-loaded.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains the core action and prerequisite but lacks behavioral details like error handling or idempotency. The examples help, but more context on side effects and return behavior would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100% so the schema already describes each parameter. The description adds examples of signal types (button clicks, collision events) which provides context, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it creates a signal connection between nodes, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like scene-node-add or scene-node-delete by focusing on signal wiring rather than node manipulation.

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?

Explicitly mentions prerequisite that source and target nodes must exist, and gives concrete use cases (button clicks, collision events). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the context makes it clear this tool is for connecting signals, not for other scene operations.

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