connect_gui

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'Connect to an already-running COMSOL GUI bridge' without mentioning whether connection is state-changing, requires authentication, is idempotent, or what happens on failure. It adds no behavioral context beyond the bare action.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is not verbose, but it is too sparse, omitting parameter and usage details. It earns its place but could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness.

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 simple tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not mention connection prerequisites, success/failure behavior, or what the output represents. Given the absence of annotations, the description should provide more operational 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameters, but it does not mention host or port at all. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions, leaving the agent clueless about parameter purpose, defaults, or valid values beyond the schema's type hints.

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 ('Connect') and a specific resource ('an already-running COMSOL GUI bridge'). The phrase 'already-running' distinguishes it from sibling launch_gui, which presumably starts a new GUI. It is clearly not a tautology and unambiguously identifies the tool's function.

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 implies it is used when a GUI bridge is already running, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like launch_gui or gui_status. There is no guidance on when not to use it or what to do if no bridge is running. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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