matomo_connect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a connection tool but doesn't disclose behavioral traits: whether it establishes a session, validates credentials, returns a connection handle, has side effects like caching, or requires specific permissions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical gaps.

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, efficient sentence in Vietnamese that directly states the tool's purpose. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with zero wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the complexity (connection tool likely required for other operations), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after connection (e.g., returns a session ID, enables subsequent calls) or error handling. For a foundational tool in this server, more context is needed.

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%, with both parameters (baseUrl, tokenAuth) well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these are for authentication, which the schema already covers. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Kết nối đến Matomo instance với URL và token xác thực' (Connect to Matomo instance with URL and authentication token). It specifies the verb (connect) and resource (Matomo instance), but doesn't differentiate from siblings like matomo_get_system_info or matomo_add_site, which likely require an established connection first.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., must be called before other Matomo tools), exclusions, or contextual cues. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling list alone.

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