raid_connect

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

The description discloses that neither parameter is ever echoed back, which is a behavioral detail. It also mentions the bearer is 'one-shot,' implying single-use behavior. However, it does not describe side effects (e.g., establishing a session) or whether it is read-only. Given no annotations, this is moderate transparency.

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 moderately long but well-structured. It leads with the main purpose, then explains the flow, and finally details parameters. No redundant sentences; each part adds value. It could be slightly more compact but is not verbose.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage flow, parameter semantics, and a behavioral note. It does not mention the output schema or error conditions, but for a connection command this is adequate. Given that an output schema exists, a brief mention of what it returns would enhance completeness, but it is not essential.

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 only provides types and titles, but the description adds rich meaning: 'agent_card_url is the full seat Agent Card URL' and 'bearer is the one-shot seat bearer, both from the game's reserve a connect seat response.' This fully explains the purpose and origin of each parameter, far exceeding the schema.

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 'Connect to your Agent Raid seat over standard A2A,' providing a specific verb and object. It is distinct from sibling tools like raid_play and raid_wait_turn, and the flow description reinforces its role as the initial connection step.

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 outlines a complete flow (raid_connect -> raid_wait_turn -> raid_play, etc.), implicitly indicating that this tool is used first. It also explains where the parameters come from, giving clear usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives or state 'use this when...' but the flow makes it obvious.

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