set_scheduler_relax_rx

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral impact. It discloses the parameter type, range, and default, and implies a mutation (set operation). However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., immediate effect, persistence, need for reboot) or potential risks of extreme values. For a simple setter, this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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: two sentences plus a bracketed spec. Every sentence is informative, with the purpose front-loaded and the constraints in a compact format. No redundant information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description provides a good amount of context: the parameter's role, valid range, and default. It lacks mention of related tools (e.g., get_scheduler_relax_rx) or persistence behavior, but for a straightforward setter, it is largely complete.

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 schema covers the parameter description (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the parameter's purpose ('controls how much other tasks can run during RX processing') and providing the default value (25), which is not in the schema. This helps the agent understand the semantic meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 sets the scheduler relaxation time for the RX task. It specifies the resource ('scheduler_relax_rx'), the verb ('Set'), and explains its effect on allowing other tasks during RX processing. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like set_scheduler_relax_osd.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_scheduler_relax_rx or set_scheduler_relax_osd. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or scenarios where adjusting this parameter is appropriate. The agent is left without context on when to invoke this tool.

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