connect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return fields (board variant, firmware version, etc.), but it fails to mention the side effect of leaving the connection open or the need to call 'disconnect' afterward. This is a significant behavioral trait that is not addressed.

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 well-structured with a concise opening sentence, a clear 'Args' section, and a 'Returns' list. It is appropriately sized for the information conveyed, with no superfluous words or repetition.

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 connection tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameters, and return values thoroughly. It falls short only in not explaining when to use it in the broader workflow (e.g., before other commands) or the need to disconnect, but overall it is largely complete for a basic connect operation.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description thoroughly explains both parameters. It provides concrete examples for 'port' (e.g., 'COM3', '/dev/ttyACM0') and explains the default 'baud' (115200) by referencing iNAV's default. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema definitions.

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 'Open the serial connection to the FC and return board identity', using a specific verb ('open') and resource ('serial connection to the FC'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'board_info' by emphasizing the connection establishment, and from 'disconnect' by being the inverse operation.

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 implies the tool is used to establish a serial connection, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'find_fc' or 'list_serial_ports'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., knowing the port) or exclusions, so usage context is only implied rather than clearly guided.

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