connect_live

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 states that the tool 'connects' but does not mention side effects, whether the connection is persistent, authentication requirements, error behavior, or how to terminate the connection. The presence of a forceReconnect parameter hints at reconnection behavior, but the description does not explain it. Significant behavioral context is missing.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the core action and provides the necessary context for the URL. There is no fluff or redundancy; every word contributes to understanding the tool's essential function.

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 tool's complexity (a websocket connection) and the lack of output schema or annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain the expected result of connecting, how the connection behaves, what forceReconnect does, or how this relates to connection_status. The description covers only the initial step of obtaining the URL, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining the parameters. It partially does for 'url' by referencing the '/typewriter connect' command, but it completely omits 'forceReconnect'. The boolean semantics of forceReconnect (e.g., whether it forces a new connection over an existing one) are left entirely to the parameter name, which is insufficient for a tool with zero schema descriptions.

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 function: 'Connect to a live Typewriter websocket.' It specifies the action (connect), the resource (live Typewriter websocket), and even provides a source for the URL ('from /typewriter connect'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like connection_status, which likely checks the status rather than establishing a connection.

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 should be used when a live websocket connection is needed, and it indicates the URL must come from '/typewriter connect'. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like connection_status, nor does it state when not to use it. The guidance is present but not fully explicit.

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