connect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose real behavioral traits: sibling tools auto-attach, this is normally unnecessary, and re-attachment is needed after a restart. It stops short of describing failure modes (no instance found, invalid pid, launch errors) or whether launching spawns a blocking GUI process.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the usage conditions before the Args block, which is the right ordering. The Args section partially restates the prose above, so there is mild redundancy, but the conditional applicability detail earns most of its space.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be described, and with zero required parameters the tool is low-complexity. The description covers when to call it and what each parameter does; only error/failure behavior is left unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: each of the three parameters is explained, including the conditional scoping that pid applies only with 'attach' and program_path only with 'launch', plus the default of latest installed version. It does not explain how to obtain a pid, which is the one practical gap.

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+resource pair ('Attach to a running CSiBridge, or start one') and immediately differentiates itself from the other tools, which attach automatically. An agent can tell from the first sentence exactly what this tool does and how it relates to the rest of the toolset.

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?

Explicitly enumerates the three conditions that justify calling it: launching via mode="launch", disambiguating multiple running instances via pid, and re-attaching after a CSiBridge restart. It also states the default condition (do nothing, since other tools attach automatically), which is an unusually clear when-not-to-use signal.

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