gmod_connect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not state whether the connection is persistent/stateful, what happens on authentication failure, whether a prior session is replaced, or how long the session survives — all critical for an RCON session tool.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the action front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification given the stateful nature of the operation.

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 session-establishing tool that many siblings depend on, and with no annotations or output schema to lean on, the description leaves key context unstated: session persistence, prerequisite ordering, and failure behavior. Only the bare action is communicated.

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%: host, port (with default 27015) and password are all documented in the schema, including the typical port value. The description adds no additional meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage 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?

The description states a specific verb (подключиться/connect) and a specific resource (Garry's Mod server via RCON), which distinguishes it from the sftp_* siblings and the other gmod_* tools. It does not, however, explicitly relate itself to gmod_disconnect or gmod_execute_rcon as its counterpart operations.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given: it does not say this must be called before gmod_execute_rcon/gmod_execute_lua/console commands, nor that gmod_disconnect ends the session. The agent must infer the ordering from the tool names alone.

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