connect_panel

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the call returns immediately regardless of match, and that a match moves the connection from unverified to connected. It also advises verification, which is helpful. However, it doesn't specify what happens on a non-match (e.g., silent failure) or any potential side effects like invalidating existing connections, leaving some gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately providing the critical usage detail. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what and why, the second gives the exact input and verification step. No redundant information, perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how to use it, and how to confirm the result. It lacks explicit error handling or edge-case descriptions, but for this straightforward operation the provided guidance is sufficient. A minor gap is not addressing what happens if the session name is incorrect, but the verification advice mitigates that.

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 schema already covers the parameter fully (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by specifying the parameter must be the exact session name from the target panel's UI and providing an example, which clarifies the expected format beyond the schema's simple description. This elevates the score to 4.

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 tool's purpose: establishing trust with a side panel via its session name. It distinguishes itself by noting it is 'the only way to do so' and explains the state transition from unverified to connected. This is specific and unambiguous, easily differentiating it from sibling tools.

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?

Provides explicit usage instructions: pass the exact session name from the panel's UI, with an example. It also tells the agent to verify the result via live_status or the UI afterward, covering the correct workflow. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, it implies this is the sole method for connecting, so no alternative is needed.

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