connect

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the main side effect ('or launch') and the return values, but it omits details such as whether a new instance is always created, how the visible parameter affects launching, and whether the handle is reusable across sibling tools. This is adequate but not thorough.

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?

One compact sentence front-loads the action and includes the key return information with no filler. Every part 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?

The tool is simple and has only one optional parameter, and the description covers the core action and return values. However, with no output schema or annotations, it leaves the agent without important context such as the visible parameter's role, prerequisites (KOMPAS installed/running), and whether connect must precede other tool calls.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the 'visible' parameter, so it does not help an agent understand the meaning of true/false or the default behavior. The property name and default true give only minimal inference; the description should have compensated for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 names the exact action ('Connect to or launch'), the target resource ('local KOMPAS-3D'), and the outcome ('return version and application handle'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like attach_active_model or open_model, which operate on models rather than establishing an application 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?

It gives clear context: an agent should call this when it needs a connection to the local KOMPAS-3D application and a handle for subsequent operations. It does not enumerate exclusions or name alternatives, so it stops short of the explicit routing required for a 5.

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