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 only states the basic function and gives examples. It does not disclose what happens on failure, whether the tool is idempotent, how sessions are managed, or any side effects beyond establishing a connection. This is minimal transparency for a tool that likely modifies state.

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: a one-line purpose, then usage examples, then parameter listing. It is front-loaded with the key requirement. Three examples may be slightly redundant, but overall structure is clear and efficient.

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 (numerous sibling tools), the description adequately covers the essential: what the tool does, prerequisites (must connect first), and parameter usage. It does not detail return values, but an output schema exists. The description is sufficiently complete for this entry-point 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description provides detailed explanations for all three parameters: address (VISA address format), instrument_type (with default 'auto' and examples like 'mxa'), and alias (session alias for later use). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema titles.

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 states '连接 VISA 仪器' (connect VISA instrument) with a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which are instrument-specific commands that require an existing connection. The tool is positioned as the prerequisite for all other operations.

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 explicitly says '必须先连接才能使用其他命令' (must connect first to use other commands), providing clear when-to-use context. Examples illustrate typical usage. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios and alternative suggestions, though alternatives are not relevant here.

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