bt_add_selector_wait

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the structural behavior (creates Root → Selector → Wait), the default wait_time, and the return dict keys. However, it doesn't state whether the tool modifies an existing BT asset in place, whether it overwrites existing nodes, or what happens if the named BT doesn't exist. The description adds some behavioral context but leaves important mutation semantics unclear.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line summary, a structural diagram, a clear alternative pointer, an Args section, a Returns section, a KB reference, and an example. Every section earns its place and the most important information (what it does and when to use it) is front-loaded.

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 simple 2-parameter convenience tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it builds, when to use it, the parameters, and the return shape. The KB reference adds depth. It's slightly incomplete on edge-case behavior (e.g., what happens if the BT asset doesn't exist or already has nodes), but for a quick-build utility this is a minor gap.

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. It does: it explains behavior_tree_name as 'Name of the existing BT asset' and wait_time as 'Wait duration in seconds (default 1.0)'. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema types. The only minor gap is not clarifying whether wait_time must be a float or can be an integer, but the schema's number type plus the description's 'seconds' is sufficient.

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 purpose: 'add a root Selector with a single Wait task' and explicitly frames it as a shortcut for the basic idle behavior tree structure. It distinguishes itself from build_behavior_tree by naming it as the full-construction alternative. The verb 'add' and resource 'root Selector with a single Wait task' are 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 explicitly says 'Use build_behavior_tree for full tree construction' and positions this tool as 'a convenience tool for testing or placeholder BTs.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance and names the alternative. The KB reference and example further reinforce usage context.

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