add_sprocket

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the approximation nature, the exact construction recipe, that bore is 0 (no shaft hole), and enumerates the returned fields. It does not explicitly state document-mutation side effects, but 'Add' plus the return handle makes the create semantics 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?

Front-loads parameters, then build method, then return semantics — a sensible order with units on every numeric. The build-recipe paragraph is slightly verbose for an LLM caller but every clause adds actionable information rather than filler.

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 6 params, no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies everything needed: parameter meanings, the derived return values (pitch_diameter, tip_radius), the mating semantics with chain and centre distances, and the known limitation. Nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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, and it does for 5 of 6 params with units and constraints (teeth >= 3, chain_pitch in mm with #40 example, roller_diameter in mm, height default 6.0, placement [x,y,z] mm). Only 'name' is left undocumented, and its title/default make it self-evident.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Add a roller-chain sprocket (ISO 606 / ANSI)') and immediately scopes it as 'built as a static solid plate', which sets it apart from sibling generators like add_gear, add_pulley and add_rack. An agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the mating/geometry context and the note that it is a 'fit/visualisation approximation... not a load-rated profile', which effectively tells the agent when this is appropriate. However it never explicitly names alternatives (add_gear, chain_drive) or states exclusions, leaving routing to inference.

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