connect_to_jupyter

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

Annotations have destructiveHint=true, and the description complements by explaining the dynamic nature (no restart needed) and optional authentication. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the bare annotation.

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: a one-sentence summary, bullet-point use cases, and concrete examples. No wordiness, and key information is front-loaded.

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 simple nature of the tool and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could mention potential side effects (e.g., disconnecting previous sessions), but the current coverage is sufficient for typical use.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value through examples (e.g., 'Connect to http://localhost:8888 without authentication') that clarify usage of jupyter_token and jupyter_url, slightly exceeding the baseline.

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 'Connect to a Jupyter server dynamically with URL and token', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (which are notebook-level operations) by focusing on server connection.

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 provides explicit scenarios for use (multiple servers, dynamic tokens, switching instances) and examples, giving clear context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the sibling list implies this is for server connection rather than notebook editing.

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