uno_connect_server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the divergent return behavior (full tools+inputSchema vs auth_url), the multi-step authorize-then-retry pattern, and the follow-up action of using uno_call_tool. This is behavioral context an agent cannot get from the schema.

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?

Sectioned as 使用场景 / 返回内容 / OAuth 流程, which is well front-loaded and scannable. It is somewhat long for a single-parameter tool, but nearly every sentence carries distinct information, so little is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains both possible return shapes (tool list or auth_url) and the required re-invocation after authorization. Combined with usage scenarios and the flow, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% and the parameter is documented there with examples; the description reinforces the parameter by using server_name in the flow but adds no new syntax or constraint. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (连接/connect) and resource (指定 MCP Server), plus the secondary purpose of handling OAuth authorization. It explicitly contrasts with uno_call_tool in step 4 of the OAuth flow, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Gives two explicit when-to-use scenarios (uncached servers needing auth from uno_search_servers, and known server names where full tool definitions are wanted) and a numbered OAuth flow that shows exactly when to call versus re-call versus delegate to uno_call_tool.

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