lm_connections

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

Annotations cover the safety profile, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: secrets are supplied only via LM_REMOTE_* env vars (including what token_env likely refers to) and selecting a remote profile disables the local CLI. It omits what 'delete' or 'save' actually do to existing configuration.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the core verb and resource, no filler. It is arguably over-compressed given the gaps in parameter and action semantics, but nothing is wasted.

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?

A multi-action mutation tool with 0% parameter coverage and no output schema should explain what each action does and which parameters each action requires. The description leaves the agent guessing whether url is needed for test/save or how select differs from save.

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 0% for 4 parameters. The description only indirectly hints at token_env via the LM_REMOTE_* mention; url, name, and especially the action enum values (list/save/test/select/delete) get no explanation of their effects or required combinations.

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?

States a specific verb set (manage/test/select) and resource (LM Studio connection profiles) with a clarifying taxonomy of local, private LAN, and HTTPS targets. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling lm_profiles, which an agent could plausibly confuse with connection-profile management.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or routing against alternatives like lm_profiles, lm_status, or lm_server_control. The only context given is a side-effect note ('Remote profile disables local CLI'), which is behavior, not usage guidance.

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