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 effectively describes the core behavior (connection and retrieval of gateway details) and the fallback mechanism for missing host. However, it lacks details on potential side effects (e.g., authentication requirements beyond password hints, network timeouts, or error handling) and does not specify the return format beyond listing fields like model and MAC address.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence, followed by conditional behavior and return details in a second sentence. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 moderate complexity (connection with optional parameters) and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it covers the purpose, usage context, and return information. However, it could be more complete by detailing error cases or the structure of the returned gateway information, which would help an agent handle responses better.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it mentions 'If no host is provided' but the schema already states this). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation 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 specific action ('connect to a Plugwise gateway'), identifies the resource types (Adam, Anna, Smile P1, or Stretch), and distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'list_hubs' or 'get_devices' by focusing on establishing a connection and retrieving gateway metadata rather than listing or controlling devices.

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 clear context on when to use this tool (to connect to a gateway and get its info) and includes a fallback behavior ('If no host is provided, automatically connects to the first discovered hub'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the siblings, such as 'list_hubs' for discovery without connection.

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