cavalry_connect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully describe behavior. It does not mention side effects such as overwriting existing connections (the force parameter), whether the operation is reversible, or what happens in case of conflicts. This is a significant gap for a connection-wiring tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 description provides essential purpose and a usage tip, but lacks behavioral details such as overwrite behavior, failure semantics, and return values. For a 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, it is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, including the tip about using 'id' for sourceAttr. The description repeats this tip without adding new semantic information, so it does not elevate beyond the schema baseline.

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 a specific action: 'Connect an output attribute to an input attribute between layers.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like cavalry_set_attribute (which sets a direct attribute) and cavalry_get_attribute (which reads).

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 provides clear context: it is for connecting attributes between layers. It also gives a practical tip about using 'id' as the outAttr for the main output. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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