connect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states a key side effect: 'Any existing connection is replaced.' It also discloses default inference behavior for transport and port, which helps the agent predict what will happen beyond the parameter schema.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds necessary guidance. It avoids redundant restatement of the tool name and keeps the important behavioral details in a small, scannable block.

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 connection tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what to pass, what to do when information is missing, default inference behavior, and the side effect of replacing an existing connection. It does not explain failure modes, but the invocation contract is sufficiently complete.

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 explain the parameters. It does: address is the user-provided connection target, transport is inferred from the address format, and port defaults to the profile value. It does not enumerate all transport options, but it compensates for the schema gap effectively.

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 clear verb-plus-resource statement, 'Connect to the oscilloscope,' which identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling operations like disconnect, configure_trigger, or run. It does not explicitly contrast itself with alternatives, but the action is specific and unambiguous.

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 concrete usage guidance: pass the address the user provided, ask the user rather than guessing, and rely on inference/defaults when values are omitted. It does not mention when to prefer sibling tools, but it gives clear operational context for calling connect correctly.

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