FleetQ

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only minimally satisfies this. While 'disconnect' mentions 'terminate', it lacks details on side effects, reversibility, required permissions, or what happens to active connections during termination.

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 efficient sentence with the purpose upfront ('Manage local bridge agent relay') followed by a compact action reference list. No redundancy or waste.

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 lack of output schema, the description should describe return values or response structures but does not. Additionally, it fails to document the conditional parameter requirements (endpoint_id only for toggle, connection_id for disconnect) which is essential for a multi-action tool.

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 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds marginal value by mapping parameters to specific actions in parentheses (e.g., 'endpoint_toggle (endpoint_id, enabled)'), but does not clarify parameter types, formats, or the requirement logic issues present in the 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 identifies a specific resource ('local bridge agent relay') and lists four specific actions with parenthetical hints about their function (e.g., 'terminate bridge connection'). It distinguishes from generic management tools by specifying 'bridge' context, though 'manage' remains somewhat generic.

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 lists available actions but provides no guidance on when to use which action versus alternatives. Critically, it fails to address that the schema incorrectly marks 'endpoint_id' as globally required when it is logically only needed for 'endpoint_toggle', leaving users to discover this through trial and error.

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