apex_add_traffic_light

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

Annotations provide all-false hints, leaving the description to disclose behavioral traits. The description states it adds an indicator based on SQL, but does not mention side effects (e.g., page modification, requirement for existing region, behavior on duplicate names). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with no annotation safety context.

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 states the essential action and purpose without wasted words. It is easily scannable and 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?

The tool has 7 parameters, an output schema, and a simple purpose. The description is minimal but sufficient to understand the intent. However, it lacks usage context (e.g., no guidance on when to choose traffic light vs other indicators) and does not elaborate on the SQL-to-color mapping behavior despite the schema example. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 high (86%), so the schema carries most parameter documentation. The description adds only the concept of SQL-based coloring, which is already echoed in the sql_query schema example. No additional parameter semantics beyond the schema are provided, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Add') and clearly identifies the resource ('traffic light indicator') plus the key basis ('based on SQL value'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gauge or metric cards, which are different visual indicators.

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 when a SQL query should drive a red/yellow/green status display, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any prerequisites. No exclusions or alternative references are given, so guidance is only implied.

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