alloc_passive

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

No annotations provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses return values (points spent, stat deltas) and a failure condition, but omits whether the operation is destructive or idempotent, and any permission or state requirements. Adequate but not thorough for a mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states purpose, the second adds behavioral details. Every word earns its place.

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 simple parameter set and presence of an output schema (not shown but referenced), the description provides necessary context. However, it could mention that allocation modifies the build state (e.g., 'This modifies the current build.') to improve completeness.

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?

The single parameter 'node' has 0% schema description coverage. The description adds meaning by clarifying that it accepts both id (integer) and name (string), which is not evident from the schema alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Allocate') and resource ('passive node'), and adds scoping details ('by id or name', 'shortest path', 'fails if not reachable'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like dealloc_passive and optimize_passives.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use alloc_passive vs search_passives or optimize_passives). The failure condition is mentioned but does not constitute usage context.

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