connect_to_dorico

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the connection mechanism (WebSocket) but lacks details on connection behavior, such as idempotency, error handling, timeout, or what the tool returns upon success or failure.

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 concise, with a clear first line stating the purpose, followed by background information, then parameter descriptions. Every sentence serves a purpose without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The tool connects to a running application, which has moderate complexity. The description covers prerequisites (Dorico 4+, WebSocket server) but omits what the tool returns (output schema exists but is not described) and error states. It is adequate but lacks completeness for a connection tool.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds value by explaining host and port are WebSocket-related and noting defaults. However, it largely repeats what the schema already shows in titles and defaults, adding only minimal new context.

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 'Connect to a running Dorico instance via its Remote Control API.' It uses a specific verb (connect) and resource (Dorico instance), and distinguishes from sibling tools like connect_to_musescore and connect_to_sibelius by naming Dorico specifically.

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 context about Dorico's built-in WebSocket server and port configuration, indicating when the tool can be used (Dorico 4+). It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the sibling differentiation is clear from the tool name.

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