connect_instance

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that only static tools are available before connect, that the bridge fetches /mcp/schema and dynamically registers tools after connect, that --lazy mode limits initial tool groups, and that clients caching tools/list must re-list after the call. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context that significantly aids correct invocation.

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 longer than average but every sentence contributes useful operational context: prerequisites, dynamic registration, lazy loading, and caching caveats. The main action and parameter note are front-loaded, with important caveats following in an organized manner. It is somewhat dense but not wasteful.

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 state-changing connection tool with no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it explains pre-conditions, post-conditions, lazy-loading implications, and client caching consequences. It does not detail failure modes or what happens if the project name is ambiguous, but the provided output schema covers return structure and the core guidance is sufficient for correct use.

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 input schema only says 'project' is a required string, but the description adds 'Project name (or substring) to connect to,' clarifying both the meaning and matching behavior. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this parameter note meaningfully compensates, though it could go further with details like case sensitivity or exact-match fallback.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Switch the MCP bridge to a different Ghidra instance by project name.' This clearly states the action and object, and it naturally distinguishes from siblings like list_instances, which only lists instances, and load_tool_group, which manages tool groups after connection.

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 gives explicit prerequisite guidance: 'Use list_instances() first to see available instances.' It also explains when the tool is needed, noting that before connecting only static bridge tools are exposed and that analysis tools are registered dynamically after a successful connect. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use the tool, but there are no true alternatives among the listed siblings.

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