Connect to a Teleport server

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses critical behavioral traits: the call is ASYNCHRONOUS, returns an id immediately, and the connection persists beyond the conversation. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent must know. It could have mentioned failure modes, but the provided details are highly valuable.

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, each earning its place: the core action, the asynchronous caveat, and the persistence warning. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and uses efficient formatting (capitalized ASYNCHRONOUS, em-dash) to draw attention to key details without waste.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers all essential operational context: how to initiate, that it returns an id, how to verify success via polling, and the persistence caveat. This is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly even in a later session.

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 already fully describes the single parameter 'address' with format examples and default scheme behavior. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Open a connection to a Teleport server and return its id.' This clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like teleport_list_connections or teleport_connection_status. The mention that the connection outlives the conversation further sharpens its purpose.

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?

It gives clear procedural guidance: 'Poll teleport_connection_status until state is CONNECTED.' This tells the agent exactly how to follow up and confirms the asynchronous nature. It does not explicitly list when not to use or name alternatives, but the sibling context and clear connect action make usage obvious.

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