switch_controller

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It warns that the operation is 'red-tier on real targets', which signals risk, but it does not explain what 'red-tier' entails, whether confirmation is required (despite a 'confirm_token' parameter), or what the consequences of stopping controllers might be. Significant behavioral context is missing.

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 a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose and a crucial risk qualifier. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

Despite the presence of an output schema, the description is too sparse for a tool with four parameters and no schema descriptions. It fails to explain controller switching semantics, the meaning of strictness, the confirmation process, or any preconditions. The description is minimally viable but leaves significant gaps in understanding how to correctly invoke 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?

The input schema provides 0% description coverage, and the description adds no parameter information whatsoever. It does not explain what 'strictness', 'confirm_token', 'stop_controllers', or 'start_controllers' mean or how they interact. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description itself offers no guidance, especially for non-obvious parameters like 'strictness' and 'confirm_token'.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'Start/stop ros_control controllers'. It also adds a critical safety qualifier 'red-tier on real targets' that further contextualizes the operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_controllers, which only lists controllers.

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 context: you would use this when you need to start or stop controllers. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. The 'red-tier' warning hints at caution but no explicit guidance is given.

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