auto_scale_service

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the doubling policy, the caps via max_cpu/max_memory, and the no-change condition. It does not mention potential side effects such as service restarts or permission requirements, but the core mutation semantics are clear.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence summary of the core policy, a one-sentence behavioral detail, then a tight Args list. No redundant elaboration.

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?

For a five-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the action, thresholds, caps, and all parameters, making correct invocation possible. The main gap is the lack of routing guidance against scale_service and side-effect caveats, but these are not required for a basic correct call.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must supply meaning. It defines all five parameters with units or roles: CPU usage %, memory %, max CPU cores, max memory in MB, and service identifier. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 names a specific action (auto-scale), a resource (service), and the exact behavior: it doubles CPU and/or memory up to caps when thresholds are exceeded, otherwise makes no change. This specificity distinguishes it from the generic sibling scale_service even though no sibling is named.

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?

It implies use for threshold-based, resource-driven scaling and states the trigger condition ('when usage exceeds the given thresholds'), but it never explicitly says when to prefer this over scale_service or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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