Bernstein - Multi-agent orchestration

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a write operation (creates a SHUTDOWN signal file), it triggers a graceful shutdown process, and it operates on the project directory. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., data loss, service interruption), authentication needs, or error conditions, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by implementation details and parameter/return explanations. Every sentence earns its place by adding value without redundancy, and the structure is clear with distinct sections.

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 complexity (a mutation with 1 parameter), no annotations, and an output schema present (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, implementation, parameters, and returns, but could improve by addressing behavioral risks or prerequisites. The output schema reduces the need for return value details.

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?

There is 1 parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining 'workdir' as the 'Project root directory (default: current directory)', which clarifies its role beyond the schema's basic title and type. Since there's only one parameter, this is sufficient for a high score, though not exhaustive.

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 specific action ('Request a graceful Bernstein shutdown by writing a SHUTDOWN signal') and distinguishes it from siblings like bernstein_run, bernstein_status, or bernstein_health by focusing on termination rather than execution, monitoring, or diagnostics. It explicitly mentions the resource being affected (the orchestrator via a signal file).

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 context ('graceful shutdown') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bernstein_run (for starting) or bernstein_status (for checking state). It provides clear operational context (shutting down the orchestrator) but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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