quick_connect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It reveals the temporary nature, that the connection is not saved, and that it returns a server_id for later use, which is useful. However, it does not detail the connection lifecycle (e.g., when it closes), error behavior, or authentication requirements beyond what the schema already implies.

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, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the core purpose, clearly states the return value, and contains no filler or redundant content. Every token earns its place.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers the key aspects: what it does, its temporary nature, and the return value. It could be more explicit about connection lifecycle or how server_id is used by other tools, but the current text is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning (e.g., clarifying password vs private_key usage), so the baseline score of 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 a specific verb ('Temporary server connection') and resource, with a distinct scope ('not saved') that differentiates it from sibling tools like connect or add_server. It also specifies the output (host:port as server_id), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 usage for temporary, non-persistent connections needed for subsequent operations, which provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool (e.g., when a saved connection is required), so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.

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