signals

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

The description and annotations both indicate destructive behavior (destructiveHint=true) and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds action-specific context (list is read-only, connect/disconnect are writes) but does not elaborate on side effects, permissions, or rate limits. No contradiction found.

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 extremely concise, using a structured list format with clear grouping. Every line serves a purpose, and the overall length is minimal.

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?

Given the 8 parameters and 3 actions, the description provides a comprehensive overview of each action's parameter requirements. However, it omits return value details for the 'list' action, which would be helpful since there is no output schema.

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%, but the description adds value by grouping parameters per action and indicating which are required vs optional for each action, which is beyond the schema's simple 'required: action' declaration.

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 clearly states 'Signal connection management' and enumerates three specific actions (list, connect, disconnect) with their required and optional parameters, making the tool's purpose immediately understandable.

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 usage through action enumeration and parameter requirements, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide 'when not to use' guidance. The sibling tools (e.g., nodes) suggest alternative contexts, but no comparison is made.

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