device_deck_connection_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the output is advisory (a command plus prerequisites) and nothing is executed, no secrets are returned, and no network state changes. What's missing is any hint about freshness/determinism of the generated command (e.g., whether it varies per call despite the idempotent hint).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the deliverable and followed by exclusions. Every clause earns its place; nothing is redundant with the title or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be described. The tool is simple (3 params, no nesting, closed-world), and the description covers purpose, side-effect profile, and output intent. The one substantive gap is the device_id vs endpoint_id relationship, which an agent may have to infer.

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 carry parameter meaning, and it largely doesn't. 'One registered endpoint' hints that endpoint_id selects the endpoint, but the distinction between device_id and endpoint_id is never clarified, and response_format (json/markdown) is unmentioned entirely. The enum values are self-explanatory, which limits the damage, but the two required IDs remain underspecified.

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 ('Return') and concrete resource content ('a connection command and human pairing/login prerequisites') scoped to 'one registered endpoint'. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools (list_devices, get_device, probe_device), which deal with enumeration, retrieval, and probing rather than producing a command plan.

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 negative list ('Does not execute the command, retrieve a password, pair a phone or modify network settings') effectively tells the agent when this tool is the wrong choice and routes it away from expecting side effects. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling for the actual execution/pairing step, so no explicit redirection.

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