rsap_connect

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It reveals key behavioral traits: attaching to an existing Robot instance or launching a new one, and the effects of the visible and interactive parameters. It does not mention failure modes or prerequisites, but for a connect tool this is strong coverage.

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 compact, front-loaded with the purpose, then usage, then parameter details. Each sentence earns its place, with no repetition or fluff. The structured Args section improves readability.

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 its simplicity (2 optional boolean params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and parameters sufficiently. It omits return-value details, but these are not critical for a connection tool. The auto-connect note provides necessary context about alternative setups.

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 has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description's 'Args' section explains each parameter clearly: visible shows the window, interactive refreshes the GUI. This adds meaning beyond the schema and fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 the action 'Connect to (or launch) Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis Professional' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it should be called before other tools, establishing its role as the initial connection step.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Call this once before other tools, unless auto-connect is enabled.' This tells the agent when to use the tool and acknowledges an alternative condition (auto-connect). It also clarifies the attach-or-launch behavior, providing context for expected behavior.

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