connect_signal

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a write operation, and the description adds that it modifies a file 'on disk'. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting existing connections or whether the scene must be saved. It provides basic context but not deep behavioral detail.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and the alternative guidance is appended without redundancy. Every word contributes value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Despite having six required parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, its static-file context, and the alternative for runtime use. The schema handles parameter details, and the description is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to invoke the tool.

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 all six parameters are individually documented with clear descriptions. The tool description itself does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic load.

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 uses a specific verb ('Connect') and specifies the resource ('a signal from one node to a method on another node in a scene file (.tscn) on disk'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from runtime monitoring tools by explicitly naming alternatives, which helps an agent select it correctly.

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 explicitly contrasts this tool with runtime signal monitoring by stating 'For runtime signal monitoring, use subscribe_signals or send_key_sequence.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, going beyond implicit usage.

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