Connect to the robot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-obvious behavior: that most tools auto-connect and that this call can be used as a recovery path. It does not describe failure modes or what a successful/failed connect returns, so it stops short of full transparency.

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, both load-bearing: the first defines the action, the second gives the conditions. Nothing is repeated from the title or annotations and the key scoping fact 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?

For a zero-required-parameter connection tool with no output schema, the description covers the decision an agent must make (do I even need to call this?) and is arguably more important than any return value. It is slightly incomplete in not indicating what happens if the connection attempt fails or how the agent should react.

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 100% and the single 'host' parameter is already documented as "IP address or hostname, if not the configured robot." The description adds no syntax, format, or fallback semantics beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb (connect/reconnect) and resource (the robot), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the auto-connecting siblings. An agent can immediately tell this apart from disconnect_robot and from the motion tools that connect implicitly.

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?

It states both when the tool is NOT needed ("Other tools connect automatically") and the two narrow conditions when it IS needed (switching robots, recovering a dropped connection). This is explicit when/when-not guidance rather than implied usage.

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