artifact_connect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares the probe is read-only with no artifacts mutated and discloses the concrete local side effect (credentials cached to ~/.artifact-mcp-cache/credentials.json). It doesn't describe what happens on auth failure or whether a session name collision overwrites an existing session, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Purpose, when-to-use, behavior, and side effects are bolded and front-loaded, so an agent can scan it quickly. The Args block partly duplicates the schema, but given 0% schema coverage that redundancy is doing useful work rather than wasting space.

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 5-parameter connection tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, every parameter, and the credential-caching side effect; the output schema handles return values. Only edge-case behavior (auth failure, session overwrite) is unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and the Args block does: it explains registry_type values ('nexus'/'artifactory'), gives base_url examples, clarifies token_or_password can be a password, API token, or access token, and states the session_name default. It could add the defaults for base_url/username/registry_type, but the mapping of meaning to each parameter is complete.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Connect to Sonatype Nexus 3 or JFrog Artifactory and create a named session') and names both supported registry products. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like artifact_disconnect and artifact_list_sessions without opening any schema.

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 'When to Use' block explicitly says to call it at the start of an artifact supply chain workflow or to switch between staging/production registries, and the Purpose line states it must be called 'before calling any registry tool.' Both the when and the prerequisite ordering are spelled out.

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