cyd_bt_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 discloses a key behavioral trait: pairing forgets the previous keyboard. It also explains the PIN/passkey flow and that the PIN is also available in cyd_bt_status. It does not mention failure modes or whether the action is destructive beyond the forget behavior, but the disclosed traits are meaningful.

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?

Three sentences, all information-dense. The action, the interaction flow, and the destructive consequence are each covered without redundancy. Front-loaded with the action and scope.

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 single-parameter action with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, how the user interaction works, and the side effect. It could mention what happens if the index is invalid or whether the action blocks, but those are minor gaps given the simplicity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'index' refers to a keyboard from the last scan, which adds meaning beyond the raw integer schema. It does not specify the valid range, but the schema already provides minimum/maximum.

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 verb ('Pair'), a specific resource ('a keyboard from the last scan by index'), and the exact interaction flow (PIN shown, user types on keyboard, Enter). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like cyd_bt_scan and cyd_bt_forget.

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 implies when to use it: after a scan, selecting by index, and it warns that pairing forgets the previous keyboard. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use cyd_bt_scan first', but the context is clear enough.

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