atelierb_add_component

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects. It does state 'Creates the file in src/ with a template and registers it with Atelier B', covering key behavioral traits. However, it omits error handling, whether it overwrites existing components, and whether the project must exist, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every word contributes meaning. It is appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core behavior (file creation and registration) but lacks details about return values, error scenarios, and prerequisites such as an existing project. It is adequate but not fully complete for the complexity of the 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by mentioning template generation fallback when content is absent, but does not elaborate on the parameters beyond what the schema already documents.

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 begins with 'Add a new B component (machine, refinement, or implementation) to a project', which clearly states the specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like atelierb_create_project (project-level) and atelierb_write_file (generic file writing) by specifying component creation and registration with Atelier B.

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 usage by describing the action and registration purpose, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like write_file or create_project. No exclusions, conditions, or prerequisite mentions are provided.

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