Live: connect

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds significant behavioral details: modal socket bridge (GUI freezes), no_freeze mode via DBus, which operations are available in each mode, and clean failure when no transport is available. This far exceeds what annotations convey.

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 dense and informative but slightly lengthy. It uses well-placed line breaks and headings, but some sentences could be tightened. Every sentence adds value, but overall conciseness could be improved.

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 complexity (starting a live session with transport selection), the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, behavior, return shape (LiveSession), and risk class. It does not explain the output schema in detail, but that is acceptable since an output schema exists.

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 coverage is 0%, so description fully compensates. It explains the 'prefer' parameter with two options: 'read' (default, modal, full surface) and 'no_freeze' (limited but non-blocking). It details the trade-offs and available operations for each, providing clear semantics.

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 'Connect to a running Inkscape over the best-ranked available transport (enables live).' It specifies the action (connect) and the resource (running Inkscape), and distinguishes from sibling tools like live_disconnect and check_live_support.

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?

Explicitly provides usage context: 'When to use: starting a live session before any other live_* tool. To probe first use check_live_support; to tear down use live_disconnect.' This clearly guides when to use this tool and what alternatives exist.

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