auto_connect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the file reading behavior and the automatic nature. It does not cover error cases (e.g., missing settings.json), but for a simple connector, it is adequate.

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 concise with three short sentences, each adding necessary information: purpose, mechanism, and rationale. No redundancy or fillers.

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?

Given one parameter, no output schema, and a simple action, the description covers the core functionality. It could mention expected outcomes or errors, but remains sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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?

The single parameter 'project_path' is described in the schema as the absolute path. The description adds value by explaining it is used to locate the .vscode/settings.json for automatic connection, going beyond 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 the tool's action: automatically connect to a device using settings from the AScript project directory. It specifies the resource (device) and the mechanism (reading .vscode/settings.json), which distinguishes it from the sibling 'connect_device' that likely requires manual input.

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 explains when to use the tool: when you have an AScript project created by the VSCode plugin, and it avoids manual IP entry. However, it does not explicitly mention the alternative 'connect_device' or when not to use this tool, though the context implies it.

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