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 for disclosing behavior. It only states the action ('connect') and a usage hint, but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), side effects, whether the connection persists, or how errors are surfaced. This is minimal transparency for a connection 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?

The description is a single sentence that conveys the essential action and a critical usage caveat. It is front-loaded and contains zero fluff, making it easy to parse while still being informative enough for a simple tool.

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?

For a tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal but understandable. It communicates the primary use case and even notes that it's rarely needed. However, it lacks behavioral details (e.g., what happens on success/failure, whether connection state is tracked), so it is not fully complete for a robust agent decision-making process.

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 input schema has 100% coverage: the only parameter `server_id` has a description 'Server ID'. The tool description adds no additional semantic information about the parameter, such as expected format or relationship to server list. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, but no extra value is provided.

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 function: 'Manually connect to server'. It uses a specific verb ('connect') and resource ('server'), and adds the contextual note that it's 'usually not needed' and that tools auto-connect, which distinguishes it as a manual override. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'quick_connect' specifically, so it's not a full 5.

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 when to use it ('usually not needed', i.e., as a fallback when auto-connect doesn't apply) but does not explicitly state alternative tools or exclude auto-connect scenarios. No named alternatives like 'quick_connect' are provided, so guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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