Connect power-meter bus

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

Annotations already specify readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds context about the scaffold's contents (read-only readings, circuit maps, adapter source, electrical-control safety notes). This goes beyond the annotations but does not reveal operational side effects (e.g., network modifications, file creation, or connection behavior). No contradiction with annotations.

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, packed sentence with no filler. It lists the scaffold's components efficiently. However, the term 'scaffold' is somewhat vague and could be more structured, but overall concise and front-loaded.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations. The description only provides a high-level overview and does not explain how parameters influence the scaffold, expected outcomes, or usage workflow. It is insufficient for correct invocation in an unfamiliar 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 description coverage is only 22% (2 of 9 parameters have descriptions). The description's mention of 'meter readings,' 'circuit maps,' and 'adapter source' loosely maps to meter_count, circuit_count, and adapter_url, but no parameter details or formats are given. Since coverage is low, the description fails to compensate adequately.

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 creates a power-meter telemetry scaffold and lists its key components (read-only meter readings, circuit maps, adapter source, safety notes). Specific verb 'Create' and resource 'power-meter telemetry scaffold' clearly distinguish it from sibling tools that connect other buses or create other scaffolds.

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 usage context is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions. With dozens of sibling 'connect_*' tools, the lack of guidance leaves the agent to infer selection criteria.

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