add_interleave_controller

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait – one child per pass, alternating in order – which is genuinely useful. However, it omits side effects, return value, whether children must already exist, and any permission or plan-modification details, so transparency is partial.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and placement, followed by a compact behavioral explanation. No filler or repeated schema information.

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 description is adequate for a simple add operation: it states what is added, where, and how it behaves, while the schema covers defaults and ignoreSubControllerBlocks. But with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves return value and explicit parameter semantics unstated, and it does not route to alternatives. Clear gaps remain.

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 only 25%; only ignoreSubControllerBlocks has a schema description. The description gives context for parentId ('under the given parent') but does not explain planId, name, or ignoreSubControllerBlocks, nor how they map to the interleave behavior. It therefore does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific action ('Add an Interleave Controller') and a placement target, then explains the distinguishing runtime behavior (one child per pass, alternating in order). This clearly separates it from sibling controllers like add_loop_controller or add_random_controller without needing to inspect their schemas.

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?

It gives placement guidance ('usually a Thread Group') and implies the use case through the alternating behavior, but it never explicitly states when to choose this controller over siblings or when not to use it. No alternatives are named, so the agent must infer selection criteria.

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