connectivity_direct

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It does disclose that the tool returns one-hop driver/load evidence and requires exact signal names, which are meaningful behavioral constraints. However, it does not mention error behavior, return format, or how bit_mode/npi_type affect results. The description provides basic transparency but lacks depth.

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 a single, clear, and front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It conveys the essential information efficiently and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which covers return values), the description is too brief to be complete. With no annotations and zero schema parameter descriptions, the description does not explain the purpose of bit_mode or npi_type, nor does it provide guidance on how to construct the request object. The tool is simple, but the description leaves key usage gaps.

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 mentions 'exact design signal names' (relating to signals) and 'driver or load' (relating to kind), but these are already evident from the enum. The description provides no information about bit_mode, npi_type, context_id, or the request structure, leaving significant semantic gaps.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('one-hop driver or load evidence for exact design signal names'). It explicitly scopes the operation to one-hop connectivity and exact signal names, distinguishing it from sibling tools like trace (which likely traverses multiple hops) and wave tools (which provide waveform data).

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 phrase 'one-hop' implies a use case: when you need only direct connectivity, not a full trace. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The usage is implied by the description's scope rather than stated directly.

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