Semaphores

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful context by explaining what semaphores are, which goes beyond the annotations. It doesn't mention auth or rate limits, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar, and the conceptual definition adds value.

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 extremely concise: two sentences and an args list. It front-loads the core purpose ('List semaphores') and follows with a practical use case. Every sentence contributes without redundancy or 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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It states what semaphores are, when to use the tool, and the one parameter's default. It omits potential filtering/scope details, but for a list tool with annotations covering safety, this is adequate.

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. It documents the tenant parameter with '(default from env)', adding an environment-default nuance not present in the schema. However, it does not elaborate on what tenant means or how it affects results, leaving partial ambiguity for the single parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('semaphores'), then defines semaphores as 'resource locks that limit concurrent job execution.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, and the added use case 'Check when jobs are waiting unexpectedly' reinforces its diagnostic purpose.

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 provides a clear usage context: 'Check when jobs are waiting unexpectedly.' This implies when the tool should be used (diagnosing unexpected waits). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.

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