auto_connect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only says 'automatically detect and connect' but doesn't indicate what happens if no active channel exists, whether it times out, or whether it returns any connection status. Missing crucial behavioral details for a tool with zero parameters.

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 sentence of 14 words, perfectly concise and front-loaded with the key action. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks important context such as what happens after connection, error behavior, or how success is indicated. For a tool with no output schema, these details would improve completeness.

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 no parameters, so there is no need for parameter documentation. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description adds no additional meaning but the schema coverage is 100% (vacuous).

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: automatically detect and connect to an active Figma plugin channel without needing a channel ID. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'join_channel' which likely require a channel ID.

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 explicit when-to-use or comparison to alternatives is provided. The phrase 'No channel ID needed' implicitly suggests using this tool when you lack a channel ID, but no direct guidance is given. Sibling context helps but description itself lacks explicit usage guidelines.

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