connect_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the effect (grants capabilities) and the return value (updated capability set), which is helpful. However, it omits details about side effects, reversibility, prerequisites, or what happens if the tool is already connected, leaving some transparency 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and zero waste. The description is concise while covering purpose, effect, and return value.

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?

For a simple tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the operation and explicitly notes the return value. It provides enough context for correct use without needing further detail.

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 schema descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, with toolId already listing the exact allowed values and agentId being clearly explained. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: connecting a third-party tool to an agent and granting its capabilities. It lists specific example tools and explicitly distinguishes this tool from the sibling tools (capability graph, attack paths, policy fix) by focusing on the connection action.

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 gives clear context on what the tool does and its effect (grants capabilities), making it obvious when to use it over siblings. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or what alternatives exist, but the context is sufficient for basic selection.

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