gauge_connect

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the behavior of connecting, starting a trace session, returning session_id and tool list, and directing the caller to proxy calls. This gives a clear behavioral contract beyond 'connect' and is appropriate for a connection tool, though it does not cover edge cases like reconnection or cleanup.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the verb and action, and every sentence earns its place: it states what it does, what it returns, and the next step. No redundant or vague phrasing exists, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

With six optional parameters and no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return value (session_id and tool list) and the intended follow-up action. It is complete enough for a connection tool, though it could mention behavioral nuances like whether repeated connects are allowed or the session lifecycle. The cross-reference to gauge_proxy_call adds valuable context.

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 provides complete descriptions for all six parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already states, which is acceptable given the schema's thoroughness. No additional clarification is needed.

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 connects to a target MCP server and starts a trace session, and it names the specific return values (session_id and available tools list). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gauge_proxy_call (which invokes tools) and gauge_disconnect (which ends sessions). The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides clear context: use this to establish a session and then instructs the caller to use gauge_proxy_call for subsequent tool calls, naming the alternative. It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if already connected), but the session-starting role is self-evident and the pointer to gauge_proxy_call gives practical guidance.

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