connect_endpoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions connecting and discovering services but lacks details on return values, side effects (e.g., persistent connection state), error handling, or authentication needs. The timeout behavior is implied by the schema but not elaborated.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action ('Connect') and includes the key purpose ('discover available services'). It contains no unnecessary 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?

Despite good conciseness, the description lacks crucial context for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. It does not explain the return value (e.g., list of services?), connection state persistence, or how to handle errors. This leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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?

All parameters are well-described in the input schema (endpoint, use_tls, timeout_ms). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: connecting to a gRPC server endpoint and discovering available services via server reflection. It uses a specific verb (connect) and resource (gRPC server endpoint), and differentiates from sibling tools like 'disconnect' (opposite) and 'list_services' (which may require prior 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 some usage context (connecting and discovering services) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'health_check' or 'list_methods'. No when-not or prerequisite guidance is given.

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