connect_to_jupyter

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it may start a kernel, but omits other behavioral aspects like idempotency, side effects, or auth requirements. Minimal transparency beyond the core action.

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 short sentences, no redundant words, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence earns its place.

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, the description does not hint at return values or error conditions. It lacks context about how this tool fits into the workflow (e.g., required before using cell tools). Completeness is low.

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 only parameter (kernel_name) has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned in the tool description. The description adds no meaning about valid values, defaults, or purpose beyond the schema's property title.

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) and the resource (Jupyter kernel), with additional behavior (starts if not running). It distinguishes well from siblings, which operate on notebook cells rather than the kernel.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., if already connected) or prerequisites. The description implies it's foundational, but does not explicitly say to use it before other notebook tools.

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