proton_connect

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether invoking it merely probes status or attempts to initiate/authenticate a connection, whether it has side effects, or what happens if Bridge is not running — critical questions for a tool named 'connect'.

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?

It is a single sentence and front-loaded with the key behavior, but the sentence is cut off mid-clause, so it is incomplete rather than tight. No wasted words, but the structure is broken by truncation.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does usefully sketch the return content (Bridge availability plus connected accounts). What is missing is the truncated remainder and clarification of side effects, so an agent cannot fully predict the outcome of calling it.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.

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 behavior (reporting Proton Mail Bridge availability and which accounts are connected), which is more than a tautology. However, the text is visibly truncated ('connected to...') and the tool name proton_connect implies establishing a connection, which sits awkwardly against the status-report phrasing, creating ambiguity about what is actually being done.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus proton_disconnect or the proton_list_* siblings, nor any prerequisites (e.g. Proton Mail Bridge must be installed/running). The diagnostic context is only inferable from the verb 'Reports'.

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