cos_supervision_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'without requiring Hub' and 'adapter-neutral' but does not disclose side effects, whether changes are reversible, required permissions, or what 'partially configure' entails.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the main purpose. No filler words. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices important detail, though for a description of this length it is structurally clean.

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 tool has 16 parameters and no annotations. The description provides almost no context about how configuration works, what options are available, or what the output contains. It is far from complete for such a complex tool, despite the output schema existing.

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 mention any of the 16 parameters. It provides zero guidance on how to map actions like 'enable' or 'disable' to parameters such as mode, action, or role_model.

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 specific verbs (show, enable, disable, partially configure) and identifies the resource (adapter-neutral supervision policy). It also provides scope (current project) and a key constraint (without requiring Hub), distinguishing it from sibling tools like cos_supervise.

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 usage: whenever you need to inspect or modify the supervision policy. It provides context (current project, no Hub needed) but does not explicitly state when to prefer an alternative or exclude other tools.

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