add_constant_throughput_timer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the core behavior (pacing to a target rate) and the placement under a parent, but it omits any side effects, prerequisites, or implications of calculator mode. This is adequate for a basic add operation, but not fully transparent.

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, tightly-worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the differentiating behavior.

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?

With five parameters, zero schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin to be fully complete. An agent would need to consult the schema for required fields and enum semantics, and the description offers little contextual help about when or how to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and the description does not name or explain any of the parameters. It vaguely references 'target rate' but does not map that to targetSamplesPerMinute, nor does it explain planId, parentId, name, or calcMode. The burden falls entirely on 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 names a specific action ('Add'), a specific resource ('Constant Throughput Timer'), and a specific placement ('under the given parent'). It also distinguishes itself by contrasting target-rate pacing with a 'fixed per-sample delay', which clearly separates it from sibling timers.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when you need throughput-based pacing rather than a fixed per-sample delay. It does not explicitly name alternatives like add_constant_timer or add_uniform_random_timer, but the 'rather than' phrasing implies the comparison, so it stops just short of explicit guidance.

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