connect_to_electron_cdp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but only restates the name. It doesn't disclose connection failure behavior, whether a session is established or reused, authentication requirements, or how the 'timeout' parameter affects blocking. A connection tool needs to state what happens when the target isn't reachable.

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?

A single tight sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. No filler, though the brevity here is partly under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation; the description leaves prerequisites, failure modes, and all three parameters unexplained. For a connection-establishing tool in a large sibling set, this is insufficient.

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% for three parameters (host, port, timeout), so the description must compensate and does not — none of the parameters are mentioned. An agent gets no guidance on default host, valid port ranges, or timeout units/behavior beyond the raw JSON schema types.

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?

States a specific verb ('Connect') and resource ('running Electron application via Chrome DevTools Protocol'). The word 'running' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling launch_electron_app, but it never names that sibling or explicitly contrasts the two. Clear purpose, no explicit sibling differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this versus launch_electron_app or the session/close tools. It implies a pre-existing running app but never states the prerequisite (e.g., app must be started with a remote debugging port) or what to do if none is listening.

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