connect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates connecting to a running app via CDP but doesn't disclose what happens on success/failure, whether it's idempotent, authentication needs, or connection lifecycle. Minimal behavioral context beyond the mechanism.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and target, zero waste. Example is embedded compactly.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to explain connection behavior, success/failure, or interaction with sibling tools like launch/disconnect. It provides basic purpose and an example but leaves key operational context missing.

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 100% and the single parameter 'port' is fully documented in the schema with a default. The description adds no extra parameter detail, but with full schema coverage and only one optional parameter, the baseline of 3 is raised to 4 as the schema suffices.

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 (already running Electron app via CDP), and clarifies the target is an existing instance. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'launch' but the 'already running' wording implies the distinction.

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 mentions an example (bun run dev:local with --remote-debugging-port), which gives implied context for use, but it does not state when to use this versus 'launch' or 'disconnect' explicitly. No when-not-to-use guidance.

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