connect

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the full burden and discloses two important behavioral traits: the operation is idempotent and it does not perform login. These go beyond the bare action and shape an agent's expectations about side effects and subsequent steps. It stops short of describing failure conditions or connection state changes, but for a zero-parameter connect tool the provided transparency is solid.

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 sentences, no filler. The core action is first, followed by essential qualifiers ('Idempotent') and the critical non-login warning plus next step. Every sentence earns its place.

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-parameter connectivity tool with an output schema, the description covers the key contextual facts an agent needs: what the tool does, that it is safe to repeat, and that authentication must happen separately. It is slightly incomplete in not addressing reconnect/disconnect lifecycle, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter meaning to add. Per the calibration baseline for no parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate; 'configured host' refers to static configuration, not a parameter.

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 uses a concrete verb-resource pair: 'Open a TN3270 connection to the configured host', and immediately distinguishes itself from login by stating 'Does NOT log in'. This clearly separates connect from its siblings and makes its function unambiguous.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to call `login(userid)` afterwards, establishing that connect is only the first step and not a substitute for authentication. It also signals through 'Idempotent' that repeated invocations are safe. It does not, however, contrast with closer siblings like reconnect, leaving some usage selection up to inference.

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