connect_instance

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: that only static bridge tools are exposed before the call, that after a successful connect the bridge fetches the schema and registers tools dynamically, and that clients must honor tools/list_changed. It could mention error handling or connection persistence, but overall discloses key side effects.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and uses an 'IMPORTANT' section for critical context. It is structured with an 'Args' list. While thorough, it could be slightly more concise without losing valuable information.

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 the tool's complexity, low schema coverage, and existence of an output schema, the description covers pre-conditions, parameter semantics, post-conditions (tool registration), and lazy loading behavior. It does not explain the output, but the presence of an output schema mitigates that need. The description is sufficient for an agent to use the tool 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by stating the parameter is a 'Project name (or substring)' and can be used to match instances. This clarifies the parameter's role beyond the schema's type-only definition.

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: 'Switch the MCP bridge to a different Ghidra instance by project name.' It distinguishes from siblings by explaining that before this call only static bridge tools are exposed, and after connect, dynamic tools are registered, which sets it apart from list_instances and load_tool_group.

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?

Provides explicit pre-requisite 'Use list_instances() first' and explains the context of when to use (to connect to a different instance). It also notes the --lazy startup behavior and the need to re-list tools after the call. Minor omission of explicit 'do not use if...' scenarios.

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