cantrip_connect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and discloses key behavioral traits: it writes a file (.cantrip.json), establishes a persistent connection affecting future commands, and allows checking current state. However, it doesn't mention potential errors (e.g., invalid project name), permissions, or file overwrite behavior, leaving some gaps.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by usage notes, all in three concise sentences. Every sentence earns its place: the first explains the action, the second the impact, and the third the no-argument use case, with zero wasted words.

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 1 parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is mostly complete for a connection tool. It covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics adequately. However, it lacks details on return values or error handling, which could be useful since there's no output schema, leaving minor 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the semantic meaning of omitting the parameter ('to check the current connection'), which clarifies the optional nature beyond the schema's technical description. This compensates well, but doesn't provide additional format or validation details.

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 specific action ('connect this workspace to a Cantrip project by writing a .cantrip.json file') and distinguishes it from siblings like cantrip_init (initialization) or cantrip_project (project operations). It explicitly mentions the verb 'connect' and resource 'workspace to a Cantrip project', avoiding tautology.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Start here' indicates it's the entry point, and 'All subsequent commands will target this project automatically' explains the cascading effect. It also distinguishes usage from alternatives by stating 'Call without arguments to check the current connection', clarifying when not to provide parameters.

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