connect

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

The description contradicts the openWorldHint=false annotation. It explicitly says the tool starts a browser sign-in for Google, where the user approves in the browser, which is an external OAuth interaction. That is inconsistent with the annotation declaring a closed-world tool. Despite other rich behavioral context, the contradiction mandates a score of 1.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: it states the core action, explains key-app behavior, explains Google's special flow, points to connection_status, and adds a security rule. The most important information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 no output schema and minimal annotations, the description supplies enough context to call the tool correctly for Google and key-issuing apps, and it routes status checks to the sibling. It could clarify behavior for other OAuth-based apps or return values, but it is largely complete for a one-parameter setup tool.

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 already lists the enum and describes the app parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful app-specific semantics: for key-issuing apps it says where to get a key and the terminal command to store it, and for Google it describes the OAuth client prerequisite and browser sign-in flow. That goes beyond the enum values.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: connecting one app that the server uses. It distinguishes the tool from connection_status by naming the status sibling and explaining what connect does for Google and key-issuing apps. Slightly vague on what 'connect' means for all apps, but overall clear.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use it and names the alternative `connection_status` for checking which apps are connected. It also includes a concrete negative instruction ('Never ask the user for a key in the chat'), which is useful guidance, though it does not exhaustively cover when not to use the tool.

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