connect_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It notes that the tool returns candidates if the request is ambiguous, but does not disclose side effects, state changes, required permissions, or what happens on success/failure. The behavioral disclosure is insufficient.

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 concise at two sentences, but it contains inaccurate information (parameters not in schema). Conciseness is undermined by incorrectness, making it counterproductive.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fails to fully compensate. It does not explain what 'connect' means, the nature of 'candidates', or how the tool integrates with the MCP. The contradiction with the schema leaves the tool's actual interface unclear.

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 input schema has zero parameters, but the description mentions three parameters (flowId, tabId, nameQuery). This creates a direct contradiction between the schema and description, confusing the agent. The description adds misleading information beyond the schema, worsening understanding.

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 states the tool connects the MCP to a flow, using flowId, tabId, or nameQuery, and returns candidates if ambiguous. The verb 'connect' and resource 'flow' are clear, and the tool is distinct from siblings like 'create_flow' or 'get_flow'. However, what 'connect' specifically entails (e.g., establishing a session) is not fully defined.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions using flowId, tabId, or nameQuery, but does not clarify when each identifier is appropriate or when to avoid this tool. The hint about returning candidates provides minimal context.

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