connect_remote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral guidance by pointing to the token's location and instructing the agent to ask the user for missing values, but it does not describe post-connection behavior, failure handling, or whether the connection persists.

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 concise sentences each serve a purpose: stating the action, providing usage context, and instructing the agent on obtaining required values. No wasted or redundant content.

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 simple two-parameter connect tool, the description covers purpose, usage context, parameter sourcing, and user interaction. Missing details about connection lifecycle or failure modes are acceptable given the simplicity, but there is some room for improvement.

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 schema already describes both parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds extra meaning by detailing where the token is found (acdp-socket-server/config.json) and reinforcing the user-instruction aspect, which goes beyond the basic schema descriptions.

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 action ('Connect') and the resource ('remote ACDP coordination server'), and differentiates from siblings like start_local and connection_status by specifying cross-machine coordination.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when you need to coordinate with agents running on a different computer,' providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is sufficient.

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