Conectar em servidor Protheus

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the fallback authentication mechanism but does not mention any side effects, return values, or whether it modifies state (e.g., saving tokens). The transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concisely convey purpose and authentication behavior. Every sentence adds value; no wasted 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?

For a connection tool with simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and authentication flow. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning possible failure modes or return behavior, but overall it is sufficient.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context about 'servidor' being from servers.json and 'ambiente' defaulting to last used, but this is complementary rather than essential 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 tool's purpose: to connect and authenticate to a Protheus server environment for use by other tools. This directly distinguishes it from siblings like tds_compile or tds_syntax_check, which perform different operations.

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 context on authentication flow (tries saved token, then config file), implying it should be used before other tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear.

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