connect

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the URL formatting requirement and the mandatory pre-session ordering, but says nothing about connection persistence, authentication needs, failure modes, or whether reconnecting replaces an existing connection.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence plus a parenthetical covering URL provenance and formatting; nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical is dense with two distinct ideas that could be split for clarity.

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 one-parameter connect tool with no output schema and no annotations, the essential information (what it does, required ordering, URL format and sources) is present. Missing only secondary details like error behavior and connection lifecycle.

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 100% and the schema already includes an example URL, but the description adds semantic value by explaining what a valid URL is sourced from and how to normalize a raw ip:port into the expected http://<ip>:<port>/mcp form.

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 names a specific verb ('connect'), the exact resource ('ServerKit MCP server'), and the key input ('at the given URL'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming discover_servers as a URL source and implicitly contrasting with disconnect.

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?

It gives an explicit ordering rule ('Call this before start_session/run_command') and tells the agent where the URL comes from, either discover_servers or a user-supplied ip:port. This is exactly the when-to-use guidance an agent needs to sequence its calls.

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