conn

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It mentions a 'local cache' but does not explain side effects, idempotency, error handling, or what happens with successive calls. For a multi-method tool, critical behavioral details are missing.

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 verbose and poorly structured, mixing inline method summaries with formatting notes and a long parenthetical that is hard to parse. It tries to be concise but achieves confusion, making it difficult for an agent to quickly understand the tool's interface.

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 tool's complexity (multiple methods, nested params, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It defers essential details to a 'list' call and does not explain return values or error conditions. A new agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional information.

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 covers all parameters (method and params) with descriptions. The description adds value by listing method verbs and hinting that 'list' returns schemas for each method. However, it does not fully detail the parameters for each method, leaving the agent to rely on a separate 'list' call.

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 states that the tool handles connection credentials with multiple verbs (list, acquire, proxy, status, cached), providing some clarity on the domain. However, the purpose is muddled by overloading many operations into one tool, and the description relies on a 'list' method to fully explain each verb, making the overall purpose less immediate.

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 explains the calling convention with method and params, and gives brief inline summaries for common methods. However, it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of its siblings (as, tm, comm, kb, core, comm_send), nor does it exclude cases where alternatives are better.

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