connect_stages

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it details the stages format, auto-wiring logic, and shared_ports default. Annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false) are not contradicted, and the description clarifies that this is a compositing operation.

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 (three sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, parameter format, default behaviors. No unnecessary words.

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?

While the description covers parameter details and defaults, it lacks information about the tool's return value or output format. Since there is no output schema, the description should ideally mention what is returned. This gap reduces completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining that stages is a list of dicts with circuit_id and optional label, connections is optional, and shared_ports defaults to ['gnd']. This adds essential meaning 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 action ('Compose multiple circuit stages into a single combined circuit') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_circuit or modify_component by focusing on stage composition.

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 default behaviors (auto-wiring when connections omitted, shared_ports default) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Usage context is implied but not clearly delineated.

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