connect

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the local mode spins up an in-process relay and builds QR with LAN IP, no auth. For relay, it uses a gateway and token from env or auto-minted. This is transparent, though details on error handling (e.g., missing token) are omitted.

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 well-structured with paragraphs and a bullet list for args. Each sentence adds value, though it is slightly longer than needed. No redundant information.

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 complexity (two modes, multiple optional params) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: network requirements, auth methods, and parameter usage. It could mention the output briefly, but the output schema compensates.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description provides detailed parameter semantics: explains defaults, dependencies (e.g., url/token for relay), and sources (env, auto-mint). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare defaults.

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: 'Pair a device for live layout authoring.' It distinguishes between two modes (local and relay) and differentiates from sibling tools like 'disconnect' and 'show_qr' by focusing on the setup process.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use each target: 'target='local'' for same Wi-Fi, 'target='relay'' for any network. It explains the prerequisites (same Wi-Fi, app allowing ws://) and alternatives like auto-minting tokens. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool.

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