Connect ADS-B aircraft bus

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the create behavior is consistent. The description adds useful context by listing the scaffold's contents (sanitized rows, altitude bands, track history, adapter source, notes), which goes beyond the raw annotations. However, it does not disclose operational details such as how the connection is established, whether it initiates network traffic, or what 'sanitized' implies in terms of data handling.

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 leads with the verb 'Create' and front-loads the primary resource. It is efficient and contains no filler. The long list of components makes it slightly dense, but it remains scannable and avoids unnecessary detail.

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?

With 10 parameters, no output schema, and a likely external integration role, the description is too short to fully equip an agent. It omits what 'connecting' entails, how the scaffold is structured, the meaning of 'feed/privacy notes', and how this tool relates to sibling 'connect_*' and 'create_*' tools. The description provides only a high-level component list without operational or relational context.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate for the nine undocumented parameters. It does reference several parameter concepts: 'adapter source' hints at provider/adapter_url/adapter_mode, 'altitude bands' maps to altitude_band_count, and 'track history metadata' maps to track_history_count. But the mapping is implicit, and parameters like active, airspace_label, and aircraft_count are not clearly tied to the description, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 action 'Create' and the resource 'ADS-B aircraft scaffold', then lists specific components (sanitized aircraft rows, altitude bands, track history metadata, adapter source, feed/privacy notes). This provides a concrete picture of what the tool produces. However, the tool name says 'connect' while the description says 'create', introducing slight ambiguity, and it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar data bus tools, though the aircraft-specific details differentiate it.

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?

No explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as connect_ais_vessel_bus or other create_* scaffolding tools. The description implies it is for ADS-B aircraft data, but it does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

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