generate_direct_starter_with_control

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is a read-only generation, whether it modifies anything, what side effects occur, or what the output schema contains. The phrase 'Generate' implies creation, but there is no detail about the generated artifact's structure or any side effects. The description adds almost no behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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 short, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It front-loads the core action ('Generate power + STOP/START control') but the cryptic 'KM1 self-hold' and lack of context make the brevity a liability. A 3 is appropriate because it is not bloated, but it does not earn a higher score for structure.

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 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the output schema contains, how the parameters map to the generated circuit, or what 'self-hold' means in this context. The sibling tools suggest a domain of CAD/circuit generation, but the description alone is insufficient for an agent to invoke this tool correctly without opening the schema and guessing.

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%, so the description must compensate for the 8 parameters, but it does not. The description mentions 'KM1 self-hold' which maps to the contactor parameter, and 'STOP/START' maps to stop_button/start_button, but it does not explain the meaning of motor, overload, protection, include_explanations, or how the parameters interact. The defaults in the schema provide some hints, but the description adds minimal semantic value.

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 'Generate power + STOP/START control + KM1 self-hold.' is telegraphic and ambiguous. It names a resource (power/control circuit) and a behavior (generate), but the phrasing is cryptic ('STOP/START control', 'KM1 self-hold') and does not clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like generate_three_phase_power_circuit. The title is more descriptive than the description, but the description itself lacks a clear, specific verb+resource statement.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes generate_three_phase_power_circuit, which likely overlaps, but the description does not mention it or any selection criteria. The context signals show 8 parameters and no required parameters, so an agent has no hints about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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