slot_new

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile, so the description adds value by disclosing concrete behavior: it leases ports, returns the existing slot instead of failing on a name collision, and falls back to the next free number. This is consistent with the idempotentHint annotation and reveals side-effectful behavior beyond a plain create.

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?

Two compact sentences carry the core action, the collision behavior, and the name-omission rule without any filler. The most important information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The definition is complete for a 3-optional-parameter tool: the description covers creation, leasing, idempotent fallback, and naming behavior, while the output schema covers return values and the annotations cover safety traits. Nothing essential for selecting or invoking the tool 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 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents cwd, name, and infra_from. The description mostly reiterates the name-omission rule already present in the schema and does not add new format or dependency details for the other parameters.

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 a specific action ('create a slot') and resource ('for the current project'), then adds the key behavior of leasing ports and returning an existing slot when the name is taken. This makes it clearly distinct from siblings like resolve_port, resolve_url, and current_context.

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 implies when the tool is appropriate: when the current project needs a slot with leased ports. It also gives practical parameter guidance ('Omit name for the next free number'), but it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over alternatives or mentions any exclusions.

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