setup_connection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that the tool automatically connects after adding ('添加后自动连接') and that it can be used for subsequent device scanning, providing useful behavioral context beyond the basic 'add' operation. It doesn't contradict any annotations since none exist.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds distinct value: the action, the trigger and types with required params, and the post-add behavior. There is no filler or repetition.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential usage flow, including when to call it, what each type requires, and the automatic connection behavior. It mentions its relationship to device scanning, which aligns with sibling tools. While it doesn't specify return values or error handling, these are not strictly required for a setup action, and the schema covers parameter specifics.

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 schema provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds per-type parameter grouping and concrete examples (COM3, 192.168.1.100, 8080), which aids understanding, but this is largely redundant with the schema's existing '仅 type=... 时需要' notes. It doesn't add major new meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with '添加通讯连接' (add a communication connection), clearly stating the specific verb and resource. It enumerates three supported types (serial, tcp, udp) and distinguishes itself from siblings like remove_connection and list_connections by focusing on the addition operation.

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 explicitly states the trigger condition: '用户通过对话告知通讯方式后调用此工具' (call this tool after the user tells you the communication method). It also notes the tool's role in enabling subsequent device scanning, which clarifies when to use it in the workflow. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it's not a 5.

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