pob_node_power

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description usefully reinforces and sharpens this: 'no XML modification' and 'engine only', plus the async poll-to-complete behavior, which the agent cannot learn from the schema. However, it says nothing about job lifetime, what happens if a job is polled before completion, or whether concurrent jobs are allowed.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler, and the sequence and the key constraint are front-loaded. 'Only engine' is terse to the point of ambiguity, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With six parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description leaves the bulk of the invocation surface unexplained — an agent cannot know what stat or maxDistance do or how allocation changes results. Mentioning the heat map and report rows partially covers expected output, but the parameter gaps dominate.

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% and the description does not compensate. It never explains the domain parameters job, stat, allocation, maxDistance, or includeScene, even though two of them are enums that beg for context. Only the action lifecycle is partially clarified by naming start/poll/cancel.

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 names the resource (catalog of characteristics and a staged node-influence report) and the mechanism (standard Lua PowerBuilder), which is more than a restatement of the name. But the core concept of 'node power' is never defined, and it gives no criterion to distinguish this tool from siblings such as pob_check_build or pob_catalog. Purpose is inferable but not crisp.

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 start → poll until complete, cancel aborts sequence is explicit and actionable guidance on how to drive the job lifecycle, which is the main usability risk with a four-action tool. It also constrains scope with 'engine only'. It falls short of 5 because no alternative sibling tool is named and no preconditions for catalog vs. start are stated.

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