node_idlepc_auto

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

The description lacks detail on what 'auto-compute' entails. It does not disclose whether the tool modifies the node, how long it takes, or what the return value looks like. With no annotations, the description should convey behavioral traits, but it fails to do so.

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 extremely concise—one sentence—which is good for quick comprehension. However, it omits necessary details, indicating a trade-off between brevity and informativeness. It could be restructured to include key points without adding much length.

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 specialized computation tool, the description is insufficient. Even with an output schema available, the agent needs to know about preconditions (e.g., node type), side effects, and potential error cases. The current description leaves the agent guessing.

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%, yet the description adds no explanation for the parameters 'node_id' and 'project_id'. Their roles are implied but not clarified, and no formatting or constraints are mentioned.

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 action ('auto-compute') and the target resource ('Dynamips idle-PC value for a node'). It uses specific terminology that distinguishes it from general node operations, making the tool's purpose 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'node_idlepc_proposals'. The description does not indicate prerequisites, such as the node needing to be a Dynamips node or stopped, nor does it offer criteria for choosing between auto-compute and manual proposals.

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