Connect queue-length bus

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

The description adds some behavioral context beyond annotations by listing what the scaffold includes (metrics, sample windows, adapter source, alert notes). It does not contradict annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the write behavior aligns with the 'Create' verb. However, it doesn't disclose side effects or operational expectations.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without wasted words. It is well-structured for quick parsing.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, this sparse description leaves an agent under-informed about how to invoke the tool correctly and what to expect from it. It provides an overview but lacks the operational details needed for reliable selection and use.

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 only 22%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. While it mentions 'adapter source' and 'sample windows', it doesn't map these to specific parameters like adapter_url, adapter_mode, or sample_count. Most parameters remain unexplained beyond their names and types.

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 creates a 'queue-length scaffold' and enumerates its key components, making the purpose specific and actionable. The 'queue-length' qualifier helps distinguish it from other bus-creation tools, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus similar ones, such as connect_people_counting_bus or connect_parking_occupancy_bus. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or alternatives.

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