generate_system_ldr

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only but non-destructive, closed-world generator. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: automatic internal M/T/C allocation, hard rejection of explicit overlapping resource assignments rather than silent reassignment, and the fact that inputs may be shared. It says nothing about what artifact is produced, where it is written, or what failures besides overlap can occur.

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 short sentences with no padding, and the core behavior (automatic allocation) is front-loaded. The only efficiency loss is that unexplained shorthand like 'M/T/C' and 'overlapping resources' forces the reader to infer meaning.

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?

This is a complex tool with a deep nested schema (SystemSpec/ControlSpec, IOContract, acceptance cases), 7 top-level parameters, and no output schema. The description covers allocation and overlap rejection but omits the acceptance-testing capability, target profile selection, strict writer behavior, and what the generated artifact is.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must carry the load and largely does not. 'Inputs can be shared' gives marginal context for io_contract/acceptance inputs, and M/T/C allocation loosely maps to memory/timer/counter fields, but output_name, target_profile, strict_writers, require_acceptance, and acceptance are entirely undiscussed.

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 states a specific action ('Generate independent controls') and hints at a system-level scope, but 'independent controls' and 'M/T/C' are left unexplained, and it never distinguishes this tool from close siblings like generate_control_ldr, generate_sequence_ldr, or generate_ldr. An agent cannot tell from the text alone why it would pick this generator over the others.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many generate_* siblings. The only quasi-guidance is the rejection rule for overlapping resources, which is a constraint rather than a selection hint.

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