obs_connect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it saves URLs and probes health endpoints, but it does not explain the side effects (e.g., whether it modifies persistent state), what happens on failed probes, whether authentication (like grafana_token) is required, or if the operation is safe/reversible. The 'probe' behavior is mentioned but not detailed, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely establishes connections.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core action ('Save backend URLs') followed by the health-check behavior. It is concise and avoids fluff, though it is arguably too terse to carry the necessary detail for a tool with six parameters and no annotations.

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 complexity (6 params, no annotations, no schema descriptions), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what each URL does, the purpose of session_name, how the token is used, what the output schema contains, or how the health probes are performed and reported. An agent would be unable to correctly fill parameters or interpret results without additional information.

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 6 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'backend URLs' generically, not the specific parameters like loki_url, tempo_url, grafana_url, session_name, grafana_token, or prometheus_url. It does not explain the role of session_name or the token, nor the format of the URLs. The description adds almost no semantic value over the raw schema.

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: 'Save backend URLs and probe /ready or Grafana /api/health.' It identifies the specific resource (backend URLs) and the two health-check endpoints, distinguishing it from siblings like obs_disconnect (disconnect) and obs_status (status check). The verb 'save' and 'probe' are specific and the scope is 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or cases where another sibling (e.g., obs_status or obs_disconnect) would be more appropriate. The implied purpose of initial setup is present but not explicit, and there are no exclusions or alternatives named.

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