connect_beam_scope_mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the pre-configured port via env var, warns not to guess the port, and provides a concrete fallback procedure for debugging. This level of detail about connection prerequisites and failure handling is highly transparent.

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 appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, with each sentence providing valuable information: main purpose, port configuration, troubleshooting steps, and ordering requirement. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids filler.

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 no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, prerequisites, failure recovery, and ordering. The only gap is the lack of explicit statement about return behavior or idempotency, but for a connection tool, this is minor and the description is otherwise comprehensive.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds significant context about how the connection is configured (via BEAM_SCOPE_MCP_PORT and Elixir config), which is directly relevant to invocation even though there are no explicit parameters. This goes beyond the empty schema.

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: 'Connect to the BeamScope MCP server running in your Elixir application.' It uses a specific verb+resource and explicitly differentiates from siblings by noting it 'must be called before using other BeamScope tools,' making it distinct from status, logs, and eval 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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'This must be called before using other BeamScope tools.' It also gives detailed troubleshooting steps for connection failures (check config files, .mcp.json). However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use, which would push it to a 5.

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