spaceclaim_connect

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing real side effects: launching starts the product with its API server add-in, reconnecting tears down the previous connection first, and a server-launched product dies with the server. It also gives a concrete latency window (30-120 s), which matters for an operation the annotations only flag as non-read-only.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by the two behavioral facts an agent must know (latency and connection lifecycle). No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain returns, and it adequately covers the connection lifecycle. It could still note that this must be called before the other spaceclaim_* tools and that the product defaults to an environment variable, but the schema carries those details.

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 100%, so every parameter including mode, product, version, transport_mode, and timeout is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., how timeout interacts with the 30-120 s launch, or when hidden should be set), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource — start (or attach to) SpaceClaim/Discovery and make it the target. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like spaceclaim_disconnect, spaceclaim_status, and new_design without opening any schema.

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 two operating modes (launch vs attach) are described with their consequences, and the 30-120 s launch warning implicitly tells the agent to call this early and budget time. It never explicitly names an alternative tool or states exclusions (e.g., call spaceclaim_status to check an existing connection first), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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