connect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this establishes a connection but doesn't describe what that entails - whether it creates a persistent session, requires authentication, has timeout behavior, or what happens on failure. For a connection tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward connection tool and gets directly to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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 connection tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a successful connection returns, what happens on failure, whether connections are pooled or persistent, or how this tool relates to other database operations in the sibling set.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all 5 parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 to') and resource ('a MySQL database'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this from sibling tools like 'use_database' or 'status', which might also involve database connections in some way.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'use_database' or 'disconnect'. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this should be called first, or what happens if called multiple times.

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