FleetQ

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't explain side effects (e.g., does 'kg_add_fact' trigger immediate graph updates?), auth requirements, rate limits, or the synchronous/asynchronous nature of operations like HTTP monitoring setup. The 'Cloud' context in the title is noted but not explained behaviorally.

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 three-sentence structure is appropriately concise and front-loaded, with the primary purpose stated first. However, given the extreme complexity (27 parameters across 13 distinct sub-operations), the dense enumeration of actions in prose form hinders readability; structured formatting or action-grouping would improve clarity without sacrificing brevity.

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?

Severely inadequate for a high-complexity, multi-action tool with 27 parameters and no output schema. The description fails to document what any of the 13 actions actually do, what they return, or how the required parameters (8 total) map to specific action workflows. A unified interface of this scope requires action-specific documentation that is entirely absent.

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 beyond the schema by noting the Supabase cloud limitation and framing the action list as 'Actions' rather than just enum values. However, it doesn't explain parameter relationships (e.g., 'driver' appears agnostic to 'action') or complex object structures like 'filter_config'.

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 states the tool manages 'signal connectors and knowledge graph' with a clear verb (manage), but conflates two distinct domains without clarifying their relationship. While it lists available actions, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling 'signal_manage' or explain why these 13 disparate functions (HTTP monitoring to Telegram to knowledge graph facts) belong to a single tool.

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 explicit guidance exists on when to use specific actions versus alternatives, nor prerequisites for the required complex parameters (e.g., when is 'entity_name' needed vs 'source_entity'?). The note about Supabase being unavailable in cloud is a constraint, not usage guidance, and fails to clarify the multi-action workflow.

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