Check Generator Connector Compatibility

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

Annotations already communicate the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature of the tool. The description adds context about what the screening returns (compatibility, adapter needs, verification boundaries, unsafe paths) but does not disclose further behavioral details such as output format or edge cases. It neither contradicts annotations nor substantially enriches them.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the primary action and lists the key output categories. It is concise without being vague, though the list of outcomes is a bit compressed and could be structured for even easier parsing.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 enum-constrained parameters, no output schema), the description sufficiently communicates the tool's purpose and expected result categories. It does not detail the exact return structure, but for a screening tool this level of completeness is adequate. The annotations cover the safety profile, so the overall context is complete.

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 three parameters have clear enumerations and schema descriptions with 100% coverage. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 uses the specific verb 'Screen' and clearly identifies the resource (generator outlet, destination, and cord distance) and the outcomes it produces (direct compatibility, adapter needs, verification boundaries, unsafe paths). This differentiates it from sibling tools like search_generator_guides and calculate_generator_cord_size, which focus on searching and numeric calculation respectively.

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 implies that this tool is for evaluating compatibility scenarios rather than searching guides or computing wire sizes, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over the alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The intended use is discernible but not made explicit.

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